The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Royal Assent

Mr Speaker: I wish to advise the House that Royal Assent has been signified to the Social Security Fraud Act. The Act became law on 15 November 2001.

Assembly Business: Standing Orders

Mr Speaker: At its sitting on Tuesday 6 November 2001, the Assembly agreed an amendment to Standing Order 3(8), which refers to Members’ designation; it was to take effect until the commencement of a review under strand one of the Belfast Agreement. I have been advised in writing by the Secretary of State that that review commenced today. Therefore, with effect from today, Standing Order 3(8) reverts to the previous version, which was agreed by the Assembly on Friday 2 November 2001.

Tax Credits

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg to move
That this Assembly endorses the principle of including in the Tax Credits Bill provision for the transfer of responsibility for policy and administration of Child Benefit and Guardians’ Allowance to the Inland Revenue and social security legislative changes consequential upon the establishment of new Tax Credits, and agrees that the Bill should be considered by the United Kingdom Government.
I seek the Assembly’s endorsement of the transfer of responsibility for child benefit to the Inland Revenue as part of the tax credit reforms aimed at relieving child poverty and encouraging people into work. Bringing together responsibility for child benefit and tax credits, so that they are administered by one source, will create a more streamlined and transparent system of support for children. The new system will be more accessible and more easily understood by claimants.
I seek the House’s agreement that this and other social security legislative changes that are consequential upon the establishment of new tax credits should be considered by the United Kingdom Government and carried in the Westminster Bill. It seems sensible that one instrument in one place should carry all the necessary amendments that affect the introduction of tax credits. Prior to today’s debate every Member received a memorandum explaining the background to tax credits. With regard to social security, there has always been parity with Great Britain. That is how it should be. I am happy to respond to Members’ questions as they arise.
In the 2000 Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government’s intention to introduce new payable tax credits for families with children and for those in low-paid work. Those new tax credits will be available from 2003 and will be administered by the Inland Revenue. They will replace — and in some cases extend — the support currently available under working families’ tax credit, disabled person’s tax credit, the child elements of income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance and children’s tax credit. A consultation exercise that included Northern Ireland was initiated in July 2001 and finished on 12 October. The document ‘New Tax Credits — Supporting Families, Making Work Pay, Tackling Poverty’ was widely distributed. It indicated that discussions were taking place with Northern Ireland Ministers to consider the impact of the proposed changes on Northern Ireland’s social security provision. No significant comments were forthcoming from Northern Ireland regarding that consultation process.
The Westminster legislation introducing tax credits will apply to the United Kingdom and will make consequential changes to social security benefits in Great Britain. The main changes requiring primary legislation are the removal of children’s and disabled children’s premiums in income support and jobseeker’s allowance and the removal of child dependency increases from certain other benefits. Those will be replaced by a new system of support for families with children in tax credits for new cases from April 2003. To meet that timetable, the Government propose to introduce legislation at Westminster shortly.
Regarding Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to confirm that tax credits would be introduced in 2003. It was proposed to transfer responsibility for policy and administration of child benefit in Great Britain to the Inland Revenue. The Secretary of State has offered to include the necessary consequential Northern Ireland legislative changes in the Westminster Bill, subject to the agreement of the Assembly.
The transfer would affect 150 staff in the Social Security Agency. They would transfer from the Northern Ireland Civil Service to the Inland Revenue. Similar transfers that have taken place in Northern Ireland suggest that the terms and conditions of service are similar and have not proved contentious. A transfer of 229 staff has already taken place. Negotiations with the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance will continue. The Department of Work and Pensions has indicated that, should the transfer take place, there will be no reduction in staff, and staff will not be transferred out of Northern Ireland. Assurances given to staff of the contributions unit and family credit unit at the Social Security Agency at the time of their transfer in 1999 to the Inland Revenue have been honoured. The Inland Revenue had to recruit additional staff to administer working families’ tax credit. There is a firm expectation that additional staff will be needed to deal with the new tax credits.
If the motion is not passed, the retention of child benefit administration within Northern Ireland’s social security system would probably entail significant costs by allowing the two systems to diverge in the long term. It would entail the considerable resource input of new information technology systems, which Northern Ireland would have to procure or, subject to the Department of Work and Pensions’ agreement, it would have to pay for that Department to maintain separate computer systems for Northern Ireland-only claims.
It is difficult to quantify the time and costs involved in the consultation, negotiation and installation of a new computer system based in Northern Ireland, or the charges that the Department for Work and Pensions may levy to continue running the existing system to maintain Northern Ireland-only claims. It would require detailed negotiation; however, the costs are likely to be significant. Those costs plus the administrative costs involved would have to be met from within the Northern Ireland block. The Treasury may also raise concerns about funding social security costs that do not have equivalents in Great Britain.
The transfer of responsibility for the administration of child benefit to the Inland Revenue would impact on recipients and staff. However, child benefit will continue as a universal benefit, which is not means-tested, and which is payable subject to similar conditions. Therefore there will be no differential impact on recipients. Experience from similar transfers has shown that there should be no differential impact on staff as regards equality, because terms and conditions of service are similar and have not proved to be contentious.
The Executive noted the Chancellor’s proposal to establish new tax credits; accepted the offer to carry consequential Northern Ireland social security legislation in the Westminster Bill; and agreed, subject to Assembly approval, to the transfer of responsibility for child benefit to the Inland Revenue. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Fred Cobain: The crux of the matter is our role in scrutinising legislation — legislation that affects the citizens of Northern Ireland. We need to pay a great deal of attention to the precise terms of the motion.
An official from the Department for Social Development appeared before the Social Development Committee on 27 September 2001 to advise us on the steps taken in regard to the document ‘New Tax Credits — Supporting Families, Making Work Pay, Tackling Poverty’. I stress that I chose deliberately the term "advise us". It is fair to say that the Committee did not feel that it was consulted; that is always the problem with so-called parity legislation. The Committee for Social Development encounters that problem frequently.
Social security matters are devolved to the Assembly, but Westminster drives the law, often as part of tax and benefit reforms. I am not clear as to why it is considered necessary to devolve social security matters in the first place. However, they are devolved matters, and that is the dilemma we face.
The Inland Revenue published the consultation document on tax credits in July 2001. The proposals for the tax credit regime were first outlined in the 1999 Budget and were reaffirmed in the Chancellor’s 2000 Budget statement. It is clear from the consultation document that the Chancellor and the Government intended that the proposals should apply throughout the UK. However, the Department did not engage with the Committee for Social Development until the end of September, and then it was simply to tell us what they planned to do.
Members always insist on parity, especially when it is to ensure that people in Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged. Some people might say that choosing the Westminster route secures the parity arrangement that we seem to prefer. The Committee was told that Alistair Darling had offered the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister the opportunity to have Northern Ireland included in the forthcoming Bill.
The document entitled ‘Memorandum by the Minister for Social Development on the Proposed Transfer of Responsibility for Policy and Administration of Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance to the Inland Revenue and Social Security Changes Consequential on the Introduction of Child Tax Credits’ refers to the consultation that took place with Northern Ireland Ministers. I quote from paragraph 6, which concerns the Inland Revenue’s consultation document
"… discussions were taking place with Northern Ireland Ministers to consider the impact of the proposed changes on Northern Ireland social security provision".
Did that constitute consultation? Why were the discussions restricted to Ministers? Why was the Committee for Social Development not consulted?
If we follow the parity argument in this case — that arrangements for tax credits should apply here — how do we arrange for that to come about? On the face of it, a single Bill taken through Westminster might well satisfy our needs if we felt that we were being consulted about it.
It may be worth reminding the House that the Northern Ireland version of the Social Security Fraud Bill was brought before us not so long ago. The Minister requested accelerated passage for that Bill, but it was denied. It was denied because Members insisted on exercising their right, under the Assembly rules, to conduct the Committee Stage to scrutinise the law affecting our citizens. If we agree to the motion today, will we deny ourselves the right to scrutinise tax credits law? It is possible that we may do more than that. We may signal our acceptance that social security matters, which are currently devolved, should return to Westminster. That may set a precedent on which we find ourselves divided. It is a major issue of constitutional importance. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister considers that the motion, if passed, would have a consequential effect on the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
In dealing with tax credits in the debate today, we are examining matters of principle — the principles of parity and scrutiny. Is our present scrutiny of social security matters worth a penny candle? How effective is it, especially if one starts from the principle of maintaining parity? The tax credits law will be scrutinised at Westminster. If the House agrees to the motion, our real problem would be that the Assembly has no procedures in place to allow us to feed our views into the consideration and scrutiny that will take place at Westminster. How can that happen? If it is an oversight, it is an unfortunate one. It does our electorate a great disservice.
Wherever the fault lies, the House deserves to know how the Minister expects Northern Ireland’s views on this important piece of legislation to be represented. The principles of if, how, and to what extent we can make an effective contribution to the scrutiny of law that is generated and processed in Westminster, but which affects us in Northern Ireland, are important. Those issues are likely to arise time and again, particularly in relation to social security matters, and in other fields. If the House agrees to accept the Westminster route, it is important that urgent action be taken and that arrangements be made to ensure that our views are listened to there. We need guarantees on that today.
If the Westminster Bill proceeds without including Northern Ireland, where will that leave us? We will be back to the parity issue. The Minister has made it clear that we would need to introduce our own systems to match those in Great Britain. We will have to bear the cost of doing that, and that could be significant. We have no way of financing those systems, so the money will have to be found from within the Northern Ireland block grant. The bottom line is that our citizens will be less well-off.
I am conscious that members of the Committee and other Members wish to speak. I expect that they will touch on issues such as job security and the employment implications for those involved in the administration and payment of benefits. I am sure that they will highlight their concerns about the detail of the proposed legislation and the effects that it will have on people here. It is important that those points be made, but is it enough that they are simply made here today? I think not. They need to be made in a debate during which the law is being scrutinised, wherever that may take place. If we fail to ensure that that happens, we will fail the people in the Province.
When the Social Development Committee discussed the tax credits issue, it was decided that I should not express on behalf of the Committee any view on the transfer of a devolved matter back to Westminster — a procedural question. That is a matter for this House.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: My view is more clear-cut than that which was expressed on behalf of the Social Development Committee by its Chairperson.
The Minister has concerns about the possible divergence that might arise between the system here and that in Westminster. Nevertheless, because of my concerns, I ask the Minister not to move this motion today. It is being put through too hastily. I get the impression that we are reacting to what the Government in Westminster are telling us; there is a sense that we should be moving on. Our first responsibility is to the people in Northern Ireland who will experience changes, not least the 150 workers who will be affected if the motion is passed. Many members of the public would also experience changes.
The key issues that have not been addressed are staffing, accessibility and the cross-border matters that frequently arise, as Members who represent border areas know.
We are told that 150 staff will transfer. The memorandum states that nothing contentious has arisen as a result of an earlier transfer to allow for new family credit arrangements, but that took place just two years ago. That time span is too short. The 150 workers whose future promotion opportunities may be affected would like more thought to be given to the arrangements that will be in place for them in five or 10 years’ time. We have not been given the answers to those fundamental questions. Negotiations with the trade unions are incomplete, and we should not pass this motion until those negotiations have been concluded.
Many parents have enquiries about accessibility. They want a front office arrangement, whereby they can come in off the street to ask questions or make complaints. Those arrangements have not been clarified. What will happen under the Inland Revenue? Will the important child benefit system be located in a back room of some Inland Revenue office? Accessibility is a central issue, and we need more information.
Many cross-border workers are already experiencing difficulties. The system is complicated, and if we transfer responsibility for tax credits to the Inland Revenue, it will become more complicated — it will then be completely beyond our control. At this stage, we do not have enough information about these key issues. We need wider and more detailed consultation. I ask the Minister to reconsider the motion. Then, when that consultation has been completed, the Minister can come back to the Assembly with another Bill.

Mr Mark Robinson: I support the motion. I am in no doubt that the administration should be transferred to the Inland Revenue for the reasons I am about to give.
This debate has come about as a result of the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government intend to introduce new tax credits for families with children and those in low-paid work. New tax credits, which will be available from 2003, will provide more support for the most vulnerable in society and thus tackle child poverty and social exclusion.
The main aim of the scheme, however, is to make work pay. For many years, reliance on the benefit system has sometimes proved a better financial option than seeking employment. Nobody should be better off unemployed. The scheme aims to make employment a more attractive and viable option and will give people an opportunity to escape the cycle of deprivation. It also reinforces the Government’s commitment to combating poverty, particularly where it affects children.
The new tax credits will not detract from the current system, but will instead build on its strengths. It will, therefore, fulfil an important role in the world of benefits. This is to be a programme of reform intended to rationalise and consolidate the existing system of support. In doing so, it will make it easier to understand and more transparent, responsive and accessible.
The scheme is particularly aimed at families with children and those in low-paid work, and it will bring all associated benefits under one umbrella, cutting down on pointless bureaucracy and red tape. The new system will introduce uniformity, with a common framework for assessment and payment, which will ensure that the people of Northern Ireland will be able to benefit from United Kingdom legislation. The change that we are debating today is not change to the form of support, but rather a change of policy. We are advocating that our legislation should mirror that in Westminster, making it a uniform system.
I will move to an examination of the financial implications of this transfer of responsibility. If we in Northern Ireland were to take sole responsibility for the new system, it would require finance that would become a burden on the public purse. Management of the scheme here would require a complete overhaul of the computer network to bring the system into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have been assured that the transfer will have no negative impact on the current system, or on the recipients. The staff concerned will be working for the Inland Revenue rather than the Northern Ireland Civil Service. They have been assured that there will be no job losses, and their terms and conditions of employment will be largely similar.
It is envisaged that the transfer of the system will make the scheme much more accessible to users and, as a result, more effective, efficient and responsive to their needs. The new system will run on an annual cycle, which will ensure continuity and cut out pointless stops and starts midway through the year. This will remove any uncertainty about the level of support that a family is entitled to. It is also envisaged that the system will allow support to be finely targeted so that the most needy and vulnerable will be able to benefit from the resources available.
One of the major aims of the new scheme is to promote equality. Unfortunately, the most needy in society are usually the most excluded and often face financial barriers in the labour market.
The new tax credits scheme will promote inclusion rather than exclusion, and will extend support to those who were previously denied it.
I support the transfer of responsibility for policy- making and administration of child benefit in Northern Ireland to the Inland Revenue.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I am concerned about the motion and about the way in which the Committee for Social Development was consulted. Whom does the Minister think the motion will benefit? It will not make access to benefit any easier.
The SDLP has already mentioned the effect on jobs in the Six Counties, and I know that the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA) is strongly opposed to the motion. As elected representatives, Members deal with people who have difficulty obtaining their benefits. It will be difficult for Members — and for the public — to move away from dealing with local social security offices to dealing with the Inland Revenue, when they are trying to sort out entitlement to benefits.
I am surprised that the DUP wants to take powers away from the Assembly, given that it is so keen on devolved government. I thought that it would prefer the Assembly to be accessible and accountable. Rev Ian Paisley, for instance, has worked well with the Agriculture Committee and has obviously found such accountability to be of great benefit to the people he deals with.
One of the issues relating to the Tax Credits Bill is whether benefits should go to the main carer. When it was first raised, that issue was extremely contentious, as it could mean that money is transferred from the mother’s purse to the father’s pocket. It will continue to be a contentious matter. We are not debating that today, but it would be in the interest of Members to be able to scrutinise the Bill.
If the motion is passed, Members will be passing powers back to Westminster and affording the Assembly no chance of scrutinising or changing the Bill. It will mean that the Assembly will have no input into the legislation, and that will have a huge impact on our constituents. Passing on that responsibility could be viewed as political cowardice, at worst, or political laziness, at best. The Assembly should not transfer powers back to Westminster on matters in which it can make a difference.
The SDLP asked that the motion not be tabled today. However, it has been tabled, so Members should vote against it to prevent further disadvantage to the most needy and vulnerable in society. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: The PUP is concerned about the procedure that the House is going through. I urge the Minister to reconsider the motion. Members have had this discussion before. We have this debate every time that parity legislation comes before the House. Members must try to get round the notion of parity.
The Assembly debated a request for accelerated passage for the Social Security Fraud Bill. The Bill was not given accelerated passage, and the Minister had to come back to the House. One of the problems pointed out by Members was that Westminster had been working on the issue for six months before the Assembly even found out about it. The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, Mr Cobain, said something similar this morning. He said that Alistair Darling was supposed to have contacted our Ministers. Members of the Scottish Parliament were also asked for their feelings on the issue. It is a procedural matter, which creates a lot of difficulties. If Members do not support the motion, we will have to find the money from the Northern Ireland block. All those things pose problems for the Assembly.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Does the Member agree that one of the potential problems with the transfer to the Inland Revenue is that Northern Ireland would not, automatically or immediately, receive annual uprating in line with Great Britain and that the vulnerable section of our community discussed today would be further disadvantaged?

Mr Billy Hutchinson: That is the point I am making about the annual block. This also has implications for people who are already employed, for changes in their employment and for job losses. All of those points are important.
However, I want to focus on the procedural matter between here and Westminster. This debate is about the return to Westminster of responsibility for matters that were transferred to Northern Ireland. Either we have a devolved Government and a legislative Assembly that will continue to try to make things better for people in Northern Ireland, or we do not; we have to get this right.
If a responsibility has been devolved, there is no reason for Westminster to take it back. We need to focus upon that very point. We will get lost with arguments about whether it is the right place or not. We have to decide whether we want to continue to accept parity. We need a proper discussion about parity, when the House can be informed and we can play a proper scrutiny role — that will be the litmus test.
However, Standing Order 40 does not mention legislative parity. We must continue to look at that in order to find a way forward. I support the remarks made by the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development. As members of that Committee, we face this regularly, owing to the number of pieces of parity legislation that come to us. Why did they give us all this parity with social security matters in the first place if they want to take it back again? As an Assembly we have to focus on existing procedures and on how we deal with parity. This must change; the House must be notified early in the process; and we need access to Westminster to enable us to start scrutinising at an early stage and not at the last minute. I urge the Minister to reconsider this and to find a different way of proceeding.

Mr Derek Hussey: I accept what the Minister has told us about the significant costs that could be involved if we allow the two systems to diverge. However, like some others in the House — and I would like some answers in the Minister’s conclusion — I am concerned about paragraph 20 of his presentation, which deals with the movement of staff from the Northern Ireland Civil Service to the Imperial or Home Civil Service.
My concerns centre on the fact that many young people join the Civil Service on the basis that they will be able to transfer around Northern Ireland within the Civil Service. Many people from western parts of Northern Ireland move to Belfast for training and employment initially, hoping to move back to their home areas eventually.
I ask the Minister to respond clearly to the fear that this may involve the curtailment of transfer and promotion opportunities for staff. I note that negotiations with NIPSA continue, and I hope that if the transfer comes about, staff will be allowed to choose whether to remain a part of the Northern Ireland Civil Service or to transfer to the Home Civil Service.

Mr John Fee: I have severe problems with the motion. It is not clear what the outcome will be if the Assembly takes a decision on the matter. The motion says
"That this Assembly endorses the principle…"
Are we endorsing the principle that pieces of serious public policy will revert to Westminster? If we support the motion, we are establishing a principle. I do not support that principle — I support devolution, and we should operate it properly.
The motion goes on to propose that the administration of child benefit and guardians’ allowance be transferred to the Inland Revenue. I do not have a problem with ensuring that our administration is efficient and cost effective. Already, we efficiently administer working families’ tax credit, disabled person’s tax credit, jobseeker’s allowance and the child-related elements of income support. I have a serious problem with transferring responsibility for child benefit and guardians’ allowance policy. The Assembly already supports the appointment of a children’s commissioner. Will we really transfer responsibility for policy in the enormous area of child welfare to the taxman? Is the Inland Revenue the right body to have responsibility for policy on those issues? I have a problem with that, and I will not be supporting the motion.
The motion also asks us to give responsibility to the Inland Revenue for rafts of unspecified, consequential changes in social security legislation. It would be madness for us to give such responsibility back to Westminster. I have not seen the legislation, and I cannot endorse that. If we say it is all right for Westminster to legislate and that we do not want to see the script, the Bills or the Orders, that subverts the role of the Assembly Committees, particularly that of the Committee for Social Development. This is a complete abdication of the responsibility of the Assembly and its Committees.
Two other issues concern me. We have heard hints of a massive cost implication if we do not go along with the motion. Figures of around £5 million have been whispered. I can see no reason why the administrative element should not proceed, with the Inland Revenue footing the bill as it has in other cases.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. I will respond to these points, but the Member is living in fantasy land if he thinks that the Inland Revenue will cough up money to maintain and develop a new and separate computer system for Northern Ireland when it is offering to include us in its own system. Either we provide a new computer and IT system and the necessary administration, or the Inland Revenue will charge us for it. We must not indulge in fantasy politics.

Mr John Fee: The Minister has eloquently illustrated my next point. There is no reason for not bringing in and administering an Inland Revenue system for Northern Ireland. The Inland Revenue wants policy and legislative authority over social security issues here, and I do not believe that we should allow that. The Treasury will put up the money on its terms — if we cede authority. The Treasury is pushing us around, and we should resist.
Have we all lost our ambition for this place? Are we giving away any prospect of gaining tax-varying powers for the Assembly in the future? I do not know about other Members, but I will not give up trying on that.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the motion proposed by the Minister, but I want to make several comments. It is vital that our legislation be brought into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Continuity of the system is vital, as is equality for all. We have concerns about several points, some of which have already been expressed; staffing is one of them. The transfer of 150 staff from the Social Security Agency to the Inland Revenue has raised concerns about job transfer. Can the Minister tell us what stage the discussions are at? Have the outstanding issues been dealt with, and does he believe that staff will be happy to settle for the changes in their security? Will more staff be needed to deal with the new children’s tax credit as well as the new changes?
Concern has been expressed that the changeover could cause delays in the payment of child benefit. Can the Minister confirm that manual payments will be made to cover short-term delays in payment, should they arise? We want to ensure that there will be no delays for those who need the money most.
Point 6 of the Minister’s statement said
"No significant comments were received from Northern Ireland."
That shows that some of the people who expressed concern this morning said nothing during the consultation process, and it is a bit late in the day for them to do that now. Why did they not do so earlier? The consultation paper was widely distributed, so perhaps they will address that point.
The Minister has described the legislation that is required, and the reason for it, but further points must be made, notably about consultation. Can the Minister confirm that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister fully scrutinised the proposed legislation? If so, when did that scrutiny allow discussion with the parties and other groups in the Assembly?
Most important is the matter of money. Can the Minister clearly detail why he must have this legislation immediately? If there is any delay whatsoever in implementing the legislation, what will the financial implications be? When people consider them, they will realise how necessary the legislation is.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Eamonn ONeill: We have already begun to consider some of the difficulties that members of the Committee for Social Development faced when dealing with this. The Chairperson was correct to say that the outcome of the deliberations was inconclusive. We were neither for nor against the move — we simply could not agree. It is not surprising that there is a divergence of views in the Chamber. However, as Members are aware, a significant issue is at stake. Child benefit is a devolved matter. We have control over it. If responsibility for the policy and administration of child benefit is transferred to the Inland Revenue since taxation is a reserved matter, we will have handed back a devolved responsibility.
It is interesting to see Nigel Dodds, in his role as Minister, advocating that we do that. He has been the champion of devolved responsibilities in the past, yet he now says that we do not want responsibility for child benefit, which should return to Westminster.
The Minister and Jim Shannon use arguments about financial costs and time implications to blackmail the Assembly into supporting the motion. As my Colleague, John Fee, pointed out, this is a difficult motion to be certain about — even its structure leaves a lot to be desired. The Minister requests that we support the motion. He says that if we do not, the additional cost to the Budget could possibly be £5 million, and that if we do not make the decision today, we could be left behind. We should not allow ourselves to be blackmailed by anybody, because that would negate what we are supposed to be doing.
Let us look at the Minister’s arguments. This is not the first occasion when the time factor has been used to push things forward. In those instances, the Assembly has democratically decided to take its time and to ensure that it has all the facts in order to make a correct decision. We should not be too impressed by that argument.
Though figures were mentioned, we have yet to see a proper analysis of the possible costs. We do not know how much it will cost, nor how much of that cost will be picked up by the Inland Revenue. We have not been informed of the benefits to accessibility, openness and transparency, jobs or the protection of promotion prospects within the Civil Service. Neither have we seen an analysis of the benefits of the introduction of new technology into the present system — that is bound to be beneficial. If we had those analyses, we might be able to weigh up the pros and cons of the argument and come to a correct decision.
Michelle Gildernew remarked on the SDLP attitude. My party is asking the Minister not to move the motion today, which is his privilege. If he does not move the motion, the Committee can have a period of further deliberation and consultation. If the Minister insists on moving the motion, against the concerns of a number of Members and parties, we will vote against it. That is our clear position on the issue.
As a social democratic party, the SDLP argues that the Assembly should have full responsibility for all social issues. Transferral of responsibility to the Inland Revenue, with its reputed lack of transparency, does not bring us forward into open and transparent devolved Government, but backward. We have major concerns about moving in that direction.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I support the motion. I am a little perturbed by some of Mr ONeill’s comments. I am not saying that they were in any way insincere, but they were difficult to understand.
Several Members have questioned the issue of parity: should we or should we not? I agree that blindly following parity is the wrong principle on which to support the motion. However, where it is proven and demonstrated to be to the distinct advantage of the people of Northern Ireland, we can have no hesitation in saying that parity is the way forward. Those issues where parity may not be to our advantage are obviously a different matter.
Everyone in the Assembly has the right to vote against the motion, but with that right comes responsibility. The sum of money is approximately £5 million. Where do we find £5 million? Can we tell the Exchequer in London that we have deviated from parity and taken a different line on the issue, and that they should put up £5 million? Anyone who thinks that that would work does not live in the real world. The Exchequer would say that we made the decision to deviate onto another road, and that we can therefore pay for it.
During my time as Minister for Social Development, the Alliance Party proposed a very good motion to increase pensions by £5. No one in the House had any problem with that idea, but it would have had to be paid for from our own pocket. The first question was, therefore, "Where do we find the £50 million to pay for that?". At that stage, cold reality took over.
Some Members have played up the potential for job losses. I have read the Minister’s memorandum, and I am satisfied that the opposite will be the case. Jobs will be created. Paragraph 13 states that
"The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Alistair Darling, has indicated that should the transfer take place there will be no reduction in staff requirements nor will any staff be transferred out of Northern Ireland. Assurances given in 1999 at the time of the transfer of staff in the Social Security Agency Contributions Unit and Family Credit Unit to the Inland Revenue have been honoured."
Those who talk of potential job losses are ducking and diving. That issue is a red herring. It does not exist. There will be no loss of jobs. Jobs will be created.
We have a responsibility to support the motion. This is not the time to prove a point, political or otherwise, to the cost of the people of Northern Ireland. The tab will be picked up by them alone, not by the Assembly. The Minister will undoubtedly clarify points of genuine concern at the end of the debate.
I exhort Members to vote for the motion and to support the Minister’s endeavours.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate. I support the motion for three reasons. First, it was said that those who opposed the motion wished to preserve devolved power. That power is not real; it is cosmetic, and it is a veil. Child benefit in Northern Ireland is administered at the same rate as in the rest of the United Kingdom, and it is inconceivable that we would wish that position to change in future. Therefore, it is a power without any great benefit.
Secondly, those who attempt to take a principled stance to preserve that small part of devolved power are in grave danger of hurting the poor. That is a strange attitude for parties that claim to have a social, democratic or radical basis to take. A parity principle is in place; the levels of social services and benefits across the United Kingdom should be the same. That principle was established — at some cost and difficulty — by previous Administrations that operated from this House during the 1920s, and after 1945, when the Labour Government under Attlee developed the welfare state in the UK.
Members should hesitate before they throw out the motion and threaten the long-established and beneficial practice of parity in social services and benefits in the United Kingdom. That is the longer-term danger should the motion be rejected. The more immediate danger, as has already been stated, is that an attempt to establish our own duplicate services for tax credits might incur costs. Those services would uselessly mirror the Inland Revenue in London.
Finally, a consultation exercise on integrated child and employment tax credits ran from the summer to the autumn. I responded to that, and I wonder how many of the opponents of the motion took that opportunity to raise some of the issues that we have heard today.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I oppose the motion. If we have devolved powers, we should not hand them back. It is Committees’ role to scrutinise legislation. Why did the issue not go before the Committee for Social Development? Did its Chairperson, Mr Cobain, equivocate because the issue did not go before the Committee, or is he opposed to the power being returned to Westminster? That important distinction must be made. We heard that jobs will not be lost. However, if jobs are not to be lost, why would we transfer back the power? The issue must be teased out more thoroughly, and I support the SDLP’s view that it should be either postponed or withdrawn.
The Committees’ role is to scrutinise, and I would like the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development to clarify whether he is unsure about that, or whether he feels that the point is valid and that the motion should be scrutinised before any further action is taken.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I have listened carefully to Members’ points. Many raised important issues and concerns, and I hoped that I had dealt earlier with some of those; indeed, in my opening remarks I addressed some of the themes that were raised. However, I am happy to address those concerns again, and to deal with other issues that arose.
I will try to explain why we are at this stage and why we are proceeding in this way. It is in the interests of the recipients of child benefit and the people of Northern Ireland. I have heard arguments about principles and parity; and there may need to be further debate in Committees and in the House about parity as it relates to the area of social security. People speak about having power over social security but, as Dr Birnie rightly reminded us, it is a power that is never exercised. Who in their right mind would want to exercise that power to the detriment of the people of Northern Ireland by creating a less favourable situation than exists in the rest of the UK?
I will return to that theme, but we must concentrate on the matter before us, and on what impact the motion will have. Let us deal with issues such as devolution and principle, but let us not lose sight of the impact there will be on Northern Ireland — and the implications for the Northern Ireland block — if we do not proceed in this way.
Mr Cobain, the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, Mr Hutchinson, Mr Gallagher and others raised the issue of the role of the Committee. There has been much talk about the role of the Assembly in relation to tax credits and tax credits legislation. The Inland Revenue is responsible for the Tax Credits Bill: the Assembly has no choice in the matter. Taxation is a reserved matter, whether we like it or not. The matter is being brought forward at Westminster, whether we like it or not. That is the reality.
We could talk all day about this, but the Chancellor and the Government at Westminster have responsibility for the matter and are proceeding with it. The Government are going down this route, and we are merely being asked to consider the changes that will result from the establishment of tax credits. There seems to be a misunderstanding that we could have a role to play if we deferred the matter. The Bill is going ahead; all that the Assembly is being asked to do is to deal with the consequences. The choice is between maintaining the administration of child benefit using our own computer systems, administration, and the cost of doing that, and transferring that responsibility to the Inland Revenue following the changes under the tax credits legislation. This is not a situation where, if we do not go through with this, we can sit down and discuss the issue of tax credits. That is not the issue. Some Members have greatly misunderstood what we are being asked to do.
The document that Dr Birnie referred to, ‘New Tax Credits — Supporting Families, Making Work Pay, Tackling Poverty’, was published in July. There was a 12-week consultation period that finished on 12 October. I presume that all Members who were so exercised about the issue responded during the consultation period. I will look carefully at the responses of Members who raised these issues to make sure that they did so to the relevant Government, which in this case is Westminster. A copy of the document was sent to each MLA — indeed it was sent wider afield. As I made clear to the House from the start, no significant concerns were raised — according to those who deal with the policy and practical aspect of these issues. I will deal with the staff employment issues shortly.
As the Chairperson said, a letter providing details of tax credits, dated 20 September, was sent to the Committee for Social Development. We should remember that tax credits are not a devolved issue for Northern Ireland; they are an issue for Westminster. It was not possible to bring the matter before the Committee earlier due to the confidential nature of correspondence. Members often wax eloquent and lyrical about the agreement, the legislation, and so on. However, in keeping with the memorandum of understanding and the devolution guidance note 8, the Executive must respect the confidentiality of such exchanges between the mainland United Kingdom Government and the Assembly as a devolved institution.
I shall examine ways to involve the Committee in such issues as early as possible. My record, and that of my predecessor, shows that we try to do that as much as is possible. However, we have to deal with a mechanism and a framework that sometimes circumscribe our ability to do that. It is not of our making, but we have to deal with it.
I have already mentioned the limited response to the consultation process. However, I re-emphasise that responsibility for tax credits does not fall within the Assembly’s remit.
Billy Hutchinson mentioned the situation in Scotland. We have discussed devolution, and whether it is a real power. In regions of England, Scotland and Wales, the Scottish Parliament is held up as an example of the best and strongest form of devolution. However, the Scottish Parliament does not have responsibility for social security. Therefore, the idea that there is a massive point of principle involved in the benefits issue in Northern Ireland is misguided. The recipients of those benefits must be kept at the forefront of the debate. The Scottish Parliament would be consulted only about those areas within its control that are affected by tax credits — issues such as training. We must be clear about the real issues.
Some Members, including Mr ONeill, have asked me to delay the motion. However, by so doing, we would lose the opportunity to have the consequential changes carried at Westminster. The Assembly cannot avoid the task, for the Westminster Bill is ready to go before Parliament, where responsibility for tax credits lies, and where decisions will be taken.
I have also dealt with the costs issue. Members have spoken about a procedural matter of principle — it is more than that. A decision that is not in the best interest of the people of Northern Ireland will affect the Northern Ireland Budget and block. The estimated cost of procuring and operating a computer system to handle Northern Ireland-only child benefit claims and administration is likely to be some £5 million per annum. As a Member from this side of the House asked, what purpose does that serve if it is simply to duplicate what has already been done in Great Britain? The current charge is £215,000. Annual maintenance charges are likely to be much higher than that £215,000, given the need to maintain a similar service to that provided in Great Britain. That £5 million will supply only the basic, minimum system.
It does not take account of future development costs of keeping the system in line with changes that may occur in Great Britain. This is not something that Members can vote on without there being an implication here — there are strong implications.
If the Assembly decides to retain this area of child benefit administration, it must be aware of the consequences. The reality is that Members will want to maintain child benefit at the same rate and under the same conditions as elsewhere. Regarding the talk about power and where it lies, is anyone seriously going to come before the Assembly and suggest that we should not have the same position as elsewhere? The increases are funded centrally, they are demand-led, and they do not come out of the Northern Ireland block. Of course, Members might suggest differences that will have to be met out of the Northern Ireland block — I would be interested to hear where that money is likely to come from.
The reality is that the Assembly will want to maintain parity so that our people receive the same benefits as those elsewhere. If this motion is not passed today, we will need a system that will guarantee payment to Northern Ireland recipients. We will have to make provision for the introduction of new computer systems and the associated administrative costs. We cannot run away from this reality. The idea that the Inland Revenue will pick up the costs is simply pie-in-the-sky, fantasy nonsense. What compelling argument could be advanced to suggest that the Inland Revenue would be willing to finance a separate system when it is offering to include that as part of an overall UK-wide system? Clearly, the costs would have to be borne out of the Northern Ireland block — that is the reality.
Mr Gallagher mentioned cross-border workers. We have been down this route before. Working families’ tax credit already deals with such workers on a satisfactory basis. The problem was recognised when the system was established and measures built in. I hope that that takes care of the point Mr Gallagher and others made on that issue. Some Members referred to benefits for women and lone parents. Much of the benefit of the new integrated child credit will go to women, including lone parents. People with disabilities will continue to benefit from support as now. It has been concluded that there have been no identified negative differential impacts arising from a person’s sexual orientation, political or religious beliefs. Of course, that situation will continue to be monitored, and a final equality impact assessment will be issued after the consultation period.
What are the advantages? Some Members, including Mr Gallagher, asked who will benefit from this and expressed concern about access. I emphasise that child benefit will continue to be administered in Northern Ireland. People will continue to have access to the same staff on the same basis as at present — we have seen this happen already in the case of working families’ tax credit. I would be interested to know of any Member’s representations of dissatisfaction on that score — and I am talking here about access to staff, not to the system.
Consultation with the union will continue. The transfer will not take place until 2003 and, as I said in my opening remarks, will affect some 150 staff in the Social Security Agency. Similar transfers have taken place before involving 229 staff — 106 from family credit and 123 from the contributions unit. Those transfers clearly suggest that terms and conditions of service are similar, and they have not proved contentious.
Negotiations with NIPSA will continue as part of the overall consultation process. Some Members raised the issue of staff transfers and the number of staff that will be required. There will be no reduction in staff requirements, and staff will not be transferred out of Northern Ireland. The Inland Revenue had to recruit additional staff to administer the working families’ tax credit. It is expected that additional staff will be needed to deal with the new children’s tax credit. Mr Shannon raised the possibility of delays in manual payments. Delays will be likely only if the motion is not passed and if the Assembly breaks with the parity principle and the current system.
The additional costs that would result from the failure to pass the motion would have to be met from elsewhere in the Northern Ireland block, as would the administrative costs. I have further long-term concerns regarding the issue of parity. The Treasury may raise concerns that funding for something that is classified as social security costs in Northern Ireland does not have a corresponding social security benefit in Great Britain. The Assembly must recognise that, and it may have to deal with the issue. We can discuss the issues with the Government at Westminster and lobby there. However, those issues must be decided at Westminster. As tax credits and child benefit become more closely aligned and developed by the Inland Revenue, it will become increasingly difficult for Northern Ireland to replicate those changes. The Assembly would have to decide how to legislate for the annual upgrading of those benefits, the amounts to be upgraded and the basis for the upgrading. Whether any increases would be in line with the increase in child benefit set by the Inland Revenue, or possibly determined by some other method is a further consideration.
It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the Assembly would not want to maintain parity. Considerable costs will be incurred by allowing the systems to diverge in the long term. Section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 — a piece of legislation that many Members have quoted as something that must be supported and reinforced — states that:
"The Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Minister having responsibility for social security ("the Northern Ireland Minister") shall from time to time consult one another with a view to securing that, to the extent agreed between them, the legislation to which this section applies provides single systems of social security, child support and pensions for the United Kingdom".
They have agreed to continue to operate the existing parity system.
The argument that such a motion, which is of benefit to the people of Northern Ireland and to the Northern Ireland block, is against devolution per se, is ludicrous and without foundation, particularly when compared to the situation in Scotland. The Assembly has a duty to bring that forward in the interest of the recipients of child benefit. The concept of parity means that people in Northern Ireland pay the same rate of income tax and national insurance contributions as elsewhere. In return they have access to the same range of benefits, both contributory and non-contributory, paid at the same rates and subject to the same rules and conditions.
I would welcome a debate on the wider issues and principles; that could be beneficial. However, the accepted view is that parity works to the advantage of the Province. Contributory benefits, such as retirement pensions and incapacity benefit, are funded from national insurance contributions. The amount raised in Northern Ireland from those contributions is insufficient to meet the demands of those benefits. It has been so for a long time. The shortfall in the Northern Ireland national insurance fund is made up by a transfer from the fund in Great Britain. Similarly, in relation to non-contributory benefits financed from taxation revenue, expenditure is demand-led and outside the managed block. That is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
I hope that I have addressed most of the issues raised. When Hansard is printed, I will ensure that Members receive a written response to any matters that I may have omitted. I remind the Assembly that the main purpose of the debate is to give Members the opportunity to endorse the principle that in Northern Ireland all social security benefits should continue to operate in strict parity with Great Britain, and thus be fully funded by the Treasury. Agreeing to the transfer of the administration of child benefit to the Inland Revenue is the only way for Northern Ireland to maintain that position.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 43; Noes 32.
Ayes
Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mr Berry, Dr Birnie, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Davis, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Foster, Mr Gibson, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr Hussey, Mr B Hutchinson, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr Kennedy, Mr Leslie, Mr McClarty, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Trimble, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr J Wilson, Mr S Wilson.
Noes
Mrs E Bell, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Mr A Doherty, Mr P Doherty, Mr Fee, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Dr Hendron, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maginness, Mr Maskey, Mr McCarthy, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mr Neeson, Mrs Nelis, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Mr Tierney.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly endorses the principle of including in the Tax Credits Bill provision for the transfer of responsibility for policy and administration of Child Benefit and Guardians’ Allowance to the Inland Revenue and social security legislative changes consequential upon the establishment of new Tax Credits, and agrees that the Bill should be considered by the United Kingdom Government.

Assembly: Ad Hoc Committee on the Proposal for a Draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and the Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I beg to move
That, pursuant to Standing Order 49(7), this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider —
(a) The proposal for a draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill; and
(b) The Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan, referred by the Secretary of State and to submit a report to the Assembly by 11 December 2001.
Composition: UUP 2 SDLP 2 DUP 2 SF 2 Other Parties 3
Quorum: The quorum shall be five.
Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat. Our party has no difficulty with the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee. However, we have problems with the way in which this is being advanced. A very short time is available for public consultation, and that runs contrary to the guidelines, custom and practice that have developed through the requirements of equality legislation. Having put down that marker, we will work with the Ad Hoc Committee to ensure that there is the fullest possible public consultation on this. The Assembly needs to debate the ramifications. We support the motion.

Mr Alban Maginness: My party is concerned about the short time that this Ad Hoc Committee will have to consider issues that are important and which go to the heart of the legal system.
It is not good enough that we should have such a short time. That is the way in which several issues presented to the House have been managed — perhaps deliberately — by the Government at Westminster. It is unfair to force us to rush through our consideration of far-reaching reforms of the legal system. I reiterate the point made by Mr McLaughlin: it is wrong, in principle, for the Government to put the Assembly in that position. They have done so before, and they have now done so again on an issue of fundamental importance to the community. On behalf of SDLP Members, I express deep regret at the manner in which the matter has been put to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 49(7), this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider —
(a) The proposal for a draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill; and
(b) The Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan, referred by the Secretary of State and to submit a report to the Assembly by 11 December 2001.
Composition: UUP 2 SDLP 2 DUP 2 SF 2 Other Parties 3
Quorum: The quorum shall be five.
Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine.
The sitting was suspended at 1.41pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Education

Question 13, in the name of Mr Derek Hussey, has been withdrawn.

ICT Strategy

1. asked the Minister of Education what resources have been allocated to schools to further his ICT strategy and if the deployment of Classroom 2000 will take place within the expected timescale.
(AQO 392/01)


The Department of Education met the £3 million costs of the education and library boards’ ‘connecting teachers to ICT’ programme, which trained teachers in core information and communication technology (ICT) skills in preparation for their training in the use of ICT in their subject areas. The new opportunities fund is funding the latter training with a grant of £10·81 million over three years. The Department has also assisted schools with that comprehensive training programme by providing £20 million for 12,000 laptop computers and almost 1,000 digital projectors, and by granting exceptional closure days that can be used for the training.
A further £15·8 million has been made available to enhance electrical and data cabling circuits in schools. I also recently announced an investment of £16 million to implement the Classroom 2000-managed services in 574 small primary schools over the next eight months. That is the first of several procurements that are well under way. The plan is to award the contract for the remaining primary schools at the end of January, and the contract for special and secondary schools before the end of this school year.
All that major investment is additional to the schools’ computer-based administration systems and the NINE Connect Internet services, which are already in place. It is envisaged that the Classroom 2000 managed services will be available in all schools by the start of the 2003 school year. Through the entire process, expenditure has been managed centrally in order to minimise the bureaucratic burden on schools, so that they can concentrate on the educational use of ICT.


Is the Minister satisfied with the resources that have been allocated by the Minister of Finance and Personnel? Will they enable the Minister to implement the ICT strategy, including Classroom 2000?


ICT has an important role to play in education. When used effectively in teaching and learning, it helps to raise standards. Teachers have responded well to the challenge. I have no doubt that their training programme, the NINE Connect services and Classroom 2000 provide the kind of support that enables teachers and learners to be creative in their use of the new educational technologies.


How does the Minister intend to address complaints that teachers receive inadequate and inappropriate computer training, and that they must undertake training at home, sustaining personal telephone charges?


I have not heard those complaints, but if the Member forwards details of instances in which he believes that to have happened or about which complaints have been made to him, I will gladly have them investigated by my officials.


The younger generation has accepted IT as the new infrastructure for Northern Ireland. Does the Minister not consider the resources that he has announced today — and previously — inadequate to ensure sufficient provision to allow Northern Ireland to compete equally on the European scene?


Anyone who listened carefully to my answer to Mr Murphy would know that the Department of Education had put a great deal of finance into the development of Classroom 2000. During the recent negotiations, there have been some difficulties, which we are now well on our way to overcoming. The Department has put important resources directly into the classroom and will continue to do that in the coming months. It will pay off. Young people, teachers and everyone else in the education system understand the vital importance of ICT in the classroom.
As we have said recently, we are seeking to bring about a modern education system for a modern world and, indeed, for modern children, who are well up to the challenge. On my travels, I have been amazed by some 80-year-old "children" who think it important to attend training courses on ICT. There have been many examples of that, and there is a growing appreciation, particularly within education, of the importance of ICT in people’s lives.

Primary School Uniforms

2. asked the Minister of Education what plans he has to introduce grants to assist the unemployed and those families on low incomes to buy primary school uniforms.
(AQO 389/01)


Wearing a school uniform is not governed by legislation; it is a matter for each school’s board of governors. Given the pressure on the recurrent and capital education budgets, it would be extremely difficult to justify diverting scarce resources to that end. Therefore, I have no plans at present to extend eligibility for uniform grants to the primary sector.


Does the Minister accept that in many primary schools school uniforms are necessary, whether or not they are compulsory, because they help children to avoid being stigmatised or being seen as different? Does the Minister recognise the hardship and debt that is faced by many families? How can he justify uniform grants being given for post-primary school pupils and not for primary school pupils?


Generally, uniforms for primary schools are simple and cheaper. Most primary schools have a school tie that is distinctive, but the rest of the uniforms can usually be obtained from any of the major chain stores and, hence, at competitive prices. Some schools may require a sweater with distinctive piping, but that is not a major cost.
I must have regard to spending priorities, and my aim is to ensure that the maximum level of resources is directed to classrooms. Extending the clothing allowance scheme would be relatively expensive. A grant of £50 would cost an additional £2 million a year. Funding would have to come from elsewhere in the budget, and I cannot justify diverting resources to this at present.


To follow up, can the Minister assure us that the additional cost of sports equipment, and so on, is no longer a source of embarrassment for families on low income? Whether it is a tennis racquet or a camogie stick, can he assure us that no child is embarrassed by not having one?


We are keen to see that no children are embarrassed by any situation that can develop in schools. Regarding school uniforms, the modest sum that is granted to families by the education and library boards is to deal with basic clothing. If we start supplying equipment for sporting occasions, the education budget will rocket. That is where important decisions have to be made.
Increasingly, the Department of Education is concerned to see that money goes directly to the classrooms. That is vital. Clothing grants are a matter for the education and library boards and parents. Dealing with the issue that the Member has raised would have to mean a substantial increase in my allocation from the block grant, and that would mean a huge battle in the Executive.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister said that boards of governors decide whether school uniforms should be worn, but what consultation is there? Is he in a position to direct a board of governors on that?


The individual school’s board of governors will decide whether the school should adopt a uniform. My Department has suggested to boards of governors that they consider the importance of ensuring, through school prospectuses, that parents are aware of the school’s policy on uniforms and its cost implications, especially for those parents on a low income.

School Transport

3. asked the Minister of Education to detail the criteria used to determine the availability of free school transport.
(AQO 380/01)


Legislation requires education and library boards to make such arrangements for the provision of transport as they consider necessary, or as are directed by the Department, to facilitate the attendance of pupils at grant-aided schools. The arrangements made by boards are subject to the Department’s approval.
The current approved arrangements, introduced in 1997, enable transport to be provided where pupils have been unable to gain a place in all suitable schools within statutory walking distance of their home: that is two miles for primary school pupils and three miles for others, measured by the nearest available route.
The term "suitable school" relates to the established educational categories of controlled, Catholic maintained, integrated and Irish-medium schools, and, in the grammar sector, denominational and non-denominational schools.


Is the Minister aware of the anomaly that exists in the Foyle constituency? Parents are advised, when their son leaves primary school, to nominate a school that is not his first choice. Parents do this in the knowledge that their child will not be accepted because of enhanced criteria used at that school to determine those entitled to free school transport. If they do not go through that procedure, the parents must pay for their child to attend the grammar school of their choice. That issue needs to be addressed.


The transport arrangements must be administered fairly and equitably. Many grammar schools admit pupils with lower test grades. The guidance makes it clear that to qualify for transport assistance to a school outside statutory walking distance, parents must formally apply for and be refused a place in all schools in the chosen category that are within statutory walking distance. No exceptions are made on the basis of possible rejection by nearer schools. That does not affect the likelihood of a child being admitted to other schools, as the order of preference expressed by parents may not be included in schools’ admission criteria. Any child refused a place at a nearer school would have his or her application for admission to more distant schools considered on its own merits and on an equal footing with all other applications received by the school.


Will the Minister give an assessment of the recommendations made by the Committee for the Environment in its recent report into transport used by children travelling to and from school?


I welcome the Committee’s report and assure the Assembly that my Department and the education and library boards take their responsibilities in relation to safety seriously. I shall consider the Committee’s recommendations. We must, however, recognise that the full implementation of its recommendations would require significant additional resources. Some £42 million would be needed for capital costs, as well as £23 million for running costs to remove standing passengers on school buses and the three-for-two seating arrangement. Further substantial costs would be associated with other recommendations, such as the installation of seat belts. There is a need for detailed costings and clear evidence of the benefits that would be accrued through the implementation of those recommendations before any decision is made.

Post-primary Review

4. asked the Minister of Education to outline his plans in respect of the consultation process for the second phase of the post-primary review.
(AQO394/01)


The Burns review body’s report is significant for the education system. I launched an extended consultation period to ensure that everyone with an interest will have the opportunity to consider the proposals and submit their views. The report has been sent to all MLAs, schools, education partners, further and higher education institutions, district councils, and business and community organisations.
It is available to the public and libraries on the Department’s web site and on request from the Department. In view of the report’s complexity, I asked the review body to undertake a programme of information seminars for teachers, principals, school governors and education and related bodies. Five seminars have been held already, and nine more will take place in the next few weeks.
This consultation presents a unique opportunity for us to shape our education system for the future. I urge all who have an interest or an opinion to submit their views in writing to my Department by 17 May 2002.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given the need for change in post-primary school provision, does the Minister not think that the consultation period is too long, and that it delays unnecessarily the implementation of a new and better post-primary system?


It is important to take sufficient time to agree the best way forward rather than to rush into ill-considered change. These matters are vital to the future of our education system. For that reason, I decided that there should be an extended consultation period. Our overriding objective must be to create an education system that will enable all children to reach their full potential. I intend to consider carefully all the responses we receive, and proposals for future post-primary arrangements will be discussed by the Executive, the Education Committee and the Assembly.
I have been heartened by how the debate has been conducted by everyone — educationalists, schools, teachers, principals, boards of governors and the Assembly — not only during the last couple of weeks, but over some 18 months. Many parties have made a huge contribution towards the sensible and mature discussions that we must have if we are to deal with such an important issue for children and the education system. I want to pay tribute to Assembly Members, who have adopted a well-considered approach to this. By the way in which they have contributed to the debate, they have shown that the prospects and opportunities for children are much more important than anything else. That is encouraging. I hope that people will continue to think carefully about this. From next January they can contribute to a debate which is vital to everyone.


Does the Minister agree that the abolition of academic selection, as recommended in the Burns report on post-primary education, will have a detrimental effect on the standard of education in Northern Ireland?


First, we should pay tribute to Gerry Burns and the review body for producing an important report. What is pleasing about the review is that it places children at the centre of its thinking. It places the needs and rights of all children above the preservation of structures, which is crucial.
Those who have been involved in considering the weighty body of research which has recently been put before us know that there are serious weaknesses in the education system. The research conducted by Prof Tony Gallagher from Queen’s University and Prof Alan Smith from the University of Ulster, together with the work carried out by Save the Children and the Education Committee, has shown up those weaknesses. The Committee has made it clear that we must accept that change is necessary and appropriate, and the Assembly has endorsed that.
We know the difficulties that exist. Much of children’s time is wasted in preparing for the transfer test — at the expense of real learning. One third of children who benefit from a grammar school education do so at the expense of the two thirds who are regarded as failures. The confidence and self-esteem of those two thirds takes a terrible knock that is difficult to restore in the secondary sector. Inevitably, the selection process also leaves a long tail of low-achieving schools. Only 10% of children from low-income families make it to grammar schools. Indeed, that figure is as low as 2% in the Shankill Road area. That is totally unacceptable and makes a very convincing case for change.
Change is needed. The fact that the Committee for Education and the Burns review body have spoken on this indicates that their approach is correct. We need an education system based on equality, excellence, choice and accessibility. The big challenge for us is to provide an education system where all children — irrespective of their backgrounds or circumstances — can realise their potential. We need a modern education system that caters for all children and gives them the confidence and encouragement to move into a new era.

AS Level Examinations

5. asked the Minister of Education to detail the number of pupils who took examinations at AS level last year.
(AQO 386/01)


The only information that is currently available relates to candidates who took GCE AS levels with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). There were 9,561 such candidates, including students at further education colleges, with a total of 19,104 subject entries.


There was a good deal of confusion last year among the public, schools and some of the examination boards. Will the Minister consider taking any steps to prevent a repetition of such confusion this year — particularly as the AS level examinations will be accompanied by the introduction of examinations at A2 level?


On 12 September, I announced new arrangements that will benefit all concerned, both in the number of modular examinations that are taken and in the reduced possibility of timetable clashes. Pupils will now be able to take all the written examination requirements of a full AS level in a single half- day session of up to three hours, instead of a possible four and a half hours in separate sessions. That will mean fewer examinations and, therefore, less chance of timetable clashes.
Further work from the CCEA and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has been commissioned. I will consider what further action is required on receipt of those reports, which are due to be completed by the end of December.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What other action might the Minister take to deal with concerns from parents and pupils regarding AS levels?


As I said in my previous answer, I have already announced new arrangements that will benefit everybody concerned. We have looked carefully at the way that AS levels have been managed. They are a comparatively new development. We would have been surprised if there had been no initial hiccups or difficulties to be addressed. We have certainly addressed the problems that have been brought to our attention. Problems have been created, not least for pupils, parents and teachers.
The steps we have taken, however, will serve to alleviate those difficulties, and we hope that the problems of the last year will not be repeated.


The Minister answered part of my question, but I will ask it nevertheless. Will he take steps to ensure that one age cohort is not singled out and used repeatedly for future educational experiments?


We are not interested in experimenting with our children. They are too precious a resource. However, we will certainly look — as we do on all occasions — at the particular problems and difficulties which beset us in education. In whatever decision we take, we will ensure that any problems present are overcome.

Capital Expenditure

6. asked the Minister of Education to outline the timetable for the announcement of schools capital expenditure.
(AQO 396/01)


I hope to announce the schools capital programme in March 2002, following consultation with the Education Committee.


Will the Minister give the Assembly an assurance that when proposals are brought forward next year we will not see the same imbalance as that in evidence over the last two years? Two years ago the ratio of capital spend between the maintained and controlled sectors was 3:1. Last year it was 2:1. Can he assure us that this time there will be an even spread of money?
Perhaps while he is at it the Minister could explain to the House how Members can accept any assurances from him, given yesterday’s revelations that he was engaged in handing out bombs to youngsters in Londonderry and organising the murder of a schoolteacher.


Order. The Member put a supplementary question, the second part of which did not relate to the original question.


Some journalists do not let the truth get in the way of what they consider to be a good story.
Concerning the first issue raised by Mr Wilson, I say categorically that the allegations he made were untrue and unjustified. I have consistently maintained that the schools capital building programme is determined by educational needs, be they in controlled or voluntary schools or in any other schools sector. The make-up of last year’s conventional school building programme was six Catholic maintained school projects, costing £25·7 million; 10 controlled school projects, costing £24·1 million, including two special schools which were the capital priorities of two education and library boards; and one grant maintained integrated school project, costing £12·5 million. In addition, provision was included for eight secondary projects with a total capital value of approximately £70 million under public-private partnership, and those are grouped under three separate contracting authorities. The Trustees of Catholic Maintained Schools in the Derry diocese have been allocated £34 million, the North Eastern Education and Library Board, £15 million and the South Eastern Education and Library Board, £21 million.


I accept that the Minister will wish to reserve his right to deal with the detail of his capital expenditure plans in accordance with his Department’s timetable. However, will he assure me that projects where a clear need has been identified, or where a site has been purchased and an economic appraisal completed, will receive priority? The new buildings for Loanends Primary School in my constituency of South Antrim are an example, particularly because the board of that school hoped to be among the new starts for the last financial year.


I certainly appreciate the concerns of schools and their authorities who have advanced their projects by completing an economic appraisal. My point of view, and that of the Department of Education, has always been that that is a prerequisite of ensuring a school’s eligibility for a place in the programme. Projects must be supported by an economic appraisal and be at a suitable stage of planning.
Projects are selected according to educational need, not the length of time that they have spent on the schools’ planning list.


How will the Executive’s commitment to measures such as rural proofing, equality and social inclusion influence the Minister’s decisions on the new starts programme for 2002–03? It will come as no surprise to him if I refer to the areas that I represent. St Patrick’s Grammar School, Downpatrick, has waited for 18 years; its counterpart, Assumption Grammar School, Ballynahinch, is on the waiting list, and the rural Mourne area of Moneydarragh is in urgent need of a new primary school. How can those specific examples be brought into line with rural-proofing and social-inclusion commitments?


Under the new starts programme, available capital resources are directed at the highest- priority cases, based on educational need. That encompasses the areas of social inclusion and equality, and ensures that rural communities have access to a network of strong rural schools. The Department of Education’s equality scheme provides for the school building programme to be subject to an equality impact assessment in the next financial year.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety
Rehabilitation Facilities

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she has any plans to increase rehabilitation facilities for those in the north- west with head injuries; and to make a statement.
(AQO 381/01)


Choimisiúnaigh mo Roinn an Cuibhreannas Réigiúnach Seirbhísí Míochaine le moltaí a fhorbairt do sheirbhís gortuithe inchinne. Tá feidhmiú a mholtaí á thabhairt ar aghaidh ag na ceithre bhord seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta, agus aird á tabhairt ar riachtanais mheasta a ndaonraí agus na hacmhainní atá ar fáil. Tugann Bord an Iarthair le fios gur fhorbair sé straitéis le frestal ar riachtanais daoine fásta le gortú inchinne agus go bhfuil sé i mbun a fheidhmithe.
Go dtí seo tá cúig leaba tiomanta ag an bhord i dTeach Spruce i gcomhair measúnú, athshlánú agus cúram faoisimh míochaine do dhaoine le gortú inchinne, agus tá seirbhísí pobail á bhforbairt trí sholáthar fhoireann athshlánaithe pobail ildísciplíneach.
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety commissioned the Regional Medical Services Consortium to develop proposals for a regional brain injury service. The four health and social services boards are addressing the implementation of its recommedations by considering the assessed needs of their populations and the available resources.
The Western Health and Social Services Board has developed a strategy to meet the needs of adults with brain injury and is in the process of implementing it. To date, the board has committed five beds in Spruce House to the assessment, rehabilitation and respite medical care of people with brain injuries. Community services are being developed through the provision of a multi-disciplinary community rehabilitation team. A neuropsychologist and a social worker have been appointed. Funding has also been made available to facilitate the development of other specific community rehabilitation services in the Foyle Health and Social Services Trust and the Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Services Trust.


I thank the Minister for her response. I was also referring to those young people who are paralysed by a serious head injury. Unfortunately, no treatment facilities exist in the north-west. I know of young men aged 22 and 23 who receive treatment 75 miles from their homes. Members can imagine the extra expense that those families incur should they wish to visit their sons every day. Moreover, there is the added problem of where those people will be treated once they go home. That is a problem for many of my constituents, and I would like the Minister to address it.


I was about to ask the Member whether she was coming to a question. I presume that the question is whether the Minister will look at the issue.


All boards are developing multidisciplinary community brain injury teams in keeping with the findings of the Regional Medical Services Consortium. The need for further community provision is constantly under review, and services are developed as funding permits.


What action is being taken to prevent or reduce head injuries?


Prevention is a major part of the Executive’s health and well-being priority area, as we strive to improve the population’s health. Males are four times more likely to receive brain injuries than females, and the peak age for such injuries is 15 to 25 years. A third of those injuries are associated with alcohol, and road traffic accidents account for 60% of such cases. The Executive are advancing the cross-departmental drug and alcohol strategy. Public drink-driving campaigns target young males, in an attempt to reduce road traffic accidents, which are the main cause of head injuries in that at-risk group.

Downe Hospital (Withdrawal of Maternity Services)

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make a statement on the proposed withdrawal of maternity services from the Downe Hospital.
(AQO 398/01)


Is eol domh gur cúis imní í forbairt chritéir aistrithe ardphriacail ag aonad Otharlann an Dúin.
Mar sin féin, féadaim a dhearbhú don Chomhalta gur chuir mé in iúl do Bhord an Oirthir agus do Iontaobhas an Dúin Lios na gCearrbhach go gcaithfear gach iarracht a dhéanamh le próifíl seirbhíse Ospidéal an Dúin a choinneáil, ag brath ar chinní a ghlacfar mar gheall ar thorthaí athbhreithniú na n-ospidéal géarchúraim. Is eol domh gur ghlac an bord agus an t-iontaobhas céimeanna suntasacha le haonad máithreachais an Dúin a chothabháil.
I am aware of the concerns that have arisen from the development of high-risk transfer criteria at the Downe Hospital unit. However, I can assure the Member that I have made it clear to the Eastern Board and the Down Lisburn Trust that every effort must be made to sustain the current service profile of Downe Hospital, pending decisions made following the acute hospitals review. I am aware that the board and the trust have already taken several significant steps to maintain the Downe maternity unit.


Why did the Eastern Health and Social Services Board carry out a further assessment of service in only the Downe Maternity unit, after it had carried out a risk assessment for all the maternity units in the board area last year? Why, following that, did it issue further instructions to staff on criteria for determining high-risk maternity cases? Go raibh maith agat.


All maternity units in the Eastern Board area were advised to formalise their criteria for high-risk transfers in 1999. Lagan Valley Hospital completed the work in 1999 and implemented the criteria for admissions to the unit. I have been advised that no further assessment was carried out at the Downe Hospital. The Downe maternity unit did not finalise its criteria in 1999 and requested an extension until September 2001. The Mater Hospital is in the process of finalising its criteria. I understand that transfer criteria have been introduced at Lagan Valley Hospital and that a revision of risk criteria is nearing completion at the Mater Hospital’s maternity unit. Trusts are required to review risk assessments in all maternity units continually, and the screening of referrals at the Downe maternity unit was examined as part of that process.


I thank the Minister for her assurance about the continuing delivery of good maternity care in Downpatrick, but how could she allow a small number of centralised professionals to continue to threaten the provision of maternity and other acute services in our area? Is she content that she and the Department should continue to follow the diktat of those key professionals?


In my main answer, I signalled my clear intention that every effort would be made to sustain the current service profile of all hospitals, pending decisions made following the acute hospitals review. The board and the trust have already taken steps to sustain the Downe maternity unit. Arrangements involving anaesthetists from Belfast have been introduced to maintain a robust anaesthetic service at the Downe Hospital, and those are reported to be working well. Five extra theatre nurses have been appointed to assist with the 24-hour anaesthetic rota, and the training programme for midwives has been reviewed so that all midwives are now offered the opportunity of advanced life support training.
Those measures demonstrate a clear commitment to sustaining maternity services at the Downe Hospital — that commitment is evident in the work of all the professionals in that unit. As a result of anaesthetists’ concerns, in January 2001 the Down Lisburn Trust asked the board to arrange for the high-risk pregnancy group to complete its work on the screening of referrals to the unit as soon as is practicable. However, that work was undertaken in the context of an ongoing risk assessment initiated in all units in the board area in 1999.

Acute Hospitals Services

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety when she will make her formal response to the Hayes report on acute hospitals services; and to make a statement.
(AQO 374/01)

Acute Hospitals Review Group Report

12. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail the number of responses to her consultation on the report of the acute hospitals review group.
(AQO 384/01)


Le do chead, a Cheann Comhairle, glacfaidh mé ceisteanna 3 agus 12 le chéile mar go mbaineann siad araon le tuairisc an ghrúpa athbhreithnithe ar ospidéil ghéarchúraim. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall answer questions 3 and 12 together, as they both relate to the acute hospitals review group report.
Tháinig an tréimhse chomhairliúcháin ar an tuairisc chun críche ar an 31 Deireadh Fómhair. Fuarthas isteach agus amach le 60,000 freagairt scríofa. Áirítear orthu sin thart ar 24,000 cárta poist agus litir ag tacú leis an chás go mbeadh ospidéal géarchúraim san Ómaigh, thart ar 35,000 ag tacú le hospidéal géarchúraim in Inis Ceithleann agus thart ar 500 ag tacú le soláthar seirbhísí géarchúraim in ospidéil áitiúla eile. I ndiaidh torthaí an phróisis chomhairliúcháin phoiblí a bhreithniú agus plé a dhéanamh le Comhghleacaithe ar an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin, is féidir moltaí ar an bhealach chun tosaigh a chur faoi chomhairliúchán. Tá súil agam bheith i riocht cinní a fhógairt i rith 2002.
Consultation on the report ended on 31 October. Some 60,000 written responses have been received, including about 24,000 postcards and letters supporting the case for an acute hospital in Omagh, around 35,000 supporting an acute hospital in Enniskillen, and around 500 supporting the provision of acute services in other local hospitals. Following consideration of the outcome of the public consultation process and discussion with Executive Colleagues, proposals on the way forward can be put out for consultation. I hope to be able to announce decisions in 2002.


There is concern in many areas — particularly rural areas — about the extended delay in the consideration of the Hayes report. Although the consultation period has just expired, I urge the Minister to bring forward the expected date of the departmental response, particularly in the light of the answer that she has just given about the Downe Hospital, because the maternity unit and the acute hospital are interdependent. The Minister does not seem to understand what is happening on the ground, despite a letter sent to her on 4 October by the Royal College of Midwives. It advised that, unless immediate action is taken on the maternity issue, the Downe Hospital will be closed, because new criteria introduced six weeks ago, without reference to any other Department or hospital, will be implemented in Downpatrick with discrimination.


Does the Member have a question? That seemed to be a statement.


I asked the Minister when she will bring forward the review of the review of the review, so that the maternity unit that she was so concerned about can be saved and does not cease to exist before the review is completed.


The issues involved are far-reaching, as illustrated by the many responses to the consultation. They affect many people, who have a right to have a say in decisions that affect their lives and shape their services. Indeed, the major scope and scale of the matters involved are such that they go far beyond the remit of my Department, and the way forward must be considered by the Executive. Under statutory equality duties, the equality implications will be subject to assessment and consultation.
Were I to move forward without taking any of those steps, I am sure that the Member would be the first to draw to my attention the need to do otherwise. Officials will now examine and analyse the responses, and the Executive must do likewise. We hope that proposals on the way forward can then be put out to consultation as soon as possible.


I thank the Minister for the figures that she has given us. They reflect the high level of concern in the Fermanagh and Omagh areas about the provision of acute hospital services. In view of that, will the Minister give an undertaking to the people in both areas that services will be retained in those hospitals at their current levels, while we await her decision on the location of a new hospital for the south-west?


I have signalled that I expect the current profile of services in hospitals to be maintained, and I expect boards and trusts to make every effort to ensure that they are maintained pending decisions following the outcome of the report of the acute hospitals review group. My officials are in constant contact with the Western Health and Social Services Board and both trusts to ensure that any interim difficulties arising in the trusts can be looked at urgently, as is being done in other board areas.


When will the acute services at the Ulster Hospital be upgraded? How can a service be delivered when the local hospital trust has been told that the number one priority is to break even, and not to spend over its budget? If this continues, there will be deaths, which will be down to the inability and unwillingness of the Minister and her Department to get on with the job. Will the Health Department remove the break-even criteria?


I am not certain that the question is specific to the matter being discussed.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I will have to learn this new trick of asking two supplementaries in one question. Have the Executive had any opportunity to discuss the financial implications of the Hayes report?


It is for the Executive to decide what will be on their agenda. However, it is clear that the Executive are aware of the considerable resource implications, given the amount and the scope of the recommendations made in the acute hospitals’ review. The Executive will have to examine the issue, and the financial and serious resource implications will have to be taken on board. It is not possible to say exactly when this will take place. The substantial volume of responses is being analysed by officials, and meetings are being arranged with those who asked to meet with me before the consultation period ended.

Prescription Fraud

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what steps she has taken to deal with prescription fraud.
(AQO 391/01)


Tá tosaíocht á tabhairt ag mo Roinn do thabhairt faoi chalaois díolúine oideas agus is cuid é de mhórchlár gníomhaíochta le cur i gcoinne calaoise, is cuma cé acu daoine as an phobal nó liachleachtóirí a dhéanann é. Tugadh faoi mhéid suntasach oibre cheana féin agus táthar i mbun troda i gcoinne chalaois oideas. Mar shampla, tugadh isteach seiceálacha pointí dáilte, bunaíodh aonad tiomanta frithchalaoise in Eanáir na bliana seo le díriú ar phríomhréimsí na mí-úsáide díolúine, agus le 18 mí anuas tugadh níos mó ná 120 duine tríd an Chúirt Mhionéileamh leis na muirir oideas a seachnaíodh a ghnóthú.
Tackling prescription exemption fraud is a priority of my Department, and part of a major programme of action to counter fraud, whether perpetrated by members of the public or practitioners. Significant work to combat prescription fraud is ongoing. For example, points of dispensing checks have been introduced, and a dedicated counter-fraud unit was established in January 2001 to target the main areas of exemption abuse. Over the last 18 months more than 120 members of the public have been taken through the small claims court procedure to recover the prescription charges evaded.
Next year the Department intends to introduce fixed penalty fines of up to £100, to penalise those who fraudulently claim exemption from prescription payments. Individuals who have been found to have repeatedly evaded payment of prescription charges could be prosecuted and fined up to £2,500. Those measures represent a major advance in deterring members of the public from fraudulently claiming exemption from payment of prescription charges thereby securing additional resources for the Health Service.


How much money has been earmarked to carry out those procedures? How much money will be saved as a result of those procedures in the coming year?


I cannot tell the Member the precise cost of carrying out those procedures. That will depend on how long the procedures take and whether the payment is forthcoming immediately or has to be pursued through a small claims court, for example. It is estimated that in the 2000-01 financial year some £9·5 million was lost to the Health Service on account of false claims of exemption from prescription charges. During the same period, income realised from prescription charges was £10·1 million. The annual loss due to prescription exemption fraud has decreased from £11 million, in 1999-2000, to £9·5 million in 2000-01. However, those figures do not reflect the full impact of the counter-fraud unit, which became fully operational in January 2001.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What is the role of the counter-fraud unit?


The counter-fraud unit, which is based in the Central Services Agency, has a dual remit. It is responsible for the detection and follow-up of exemption fraud cases. It is also responsible for the investigation of cases of suspected fraud by the public and by practitioners.


The figures that the Minister quotes are staggering. How do figures relating to prescription fraud in Northern Ireland compare with those for other regions in the United Kingdom?


The Department does not have comparable figures for incidents of prescription fraud. In Northern Ireland the rate of prescription exemption claims, including prepayment certificates, is 90%. That figure compares with 90% in Scotland and 85% in England.

Special Needs Assessment Centres (Occupational Therapy)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail arrangements to ensure that adequate and appropriate resources are made available for occupational therapy for children in special-needs assessment centres.
(AQO 377/01)


Is faoi na hiontaobhais agus na boird seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta atá sé a chinntiú go gcuirtear teiripe shaothair ar fáil le freastal ar riachtanais mheasta leanaí ina limistéir, agus aird á tabhairt acu ar na hacmhainní atá ar fáil dóibh. In Aibreán 1999 leithdháil mo Roinn £400,000 athfhillteach orthu do sholáthar breise teiripe do leanaí réamhscolaíochta agus in aois scoile.
I mbliana, bhunaigh mo Roinn comhghrúpa oibre le feidhmeannaigh ón Roinn Oideachais le breithniú a dhéanamh ar an tacaíocht teiripe a theastaíonn ó leanaí le riachtanais speisialta agus an bealach is fearr leis an tacaíocht sin a sholáthar. Cuideoidh obair an ghrúpa cainníocht a dhéanamh ar na riachtanais nár freastaladh orthu go dtí seo, agus eolas a thabhairt ar spriocdhíriú, pleanáil agus forbairt seirbhíse na seirbhísí teiripe, teiripe shaothair san áireamh. Tá an grúpa ag fiosrú deiseanna chomh maith do thionscadail phíolótacha cómhaoinithe le soláthar seirbhíse a mhéadú.
It is the responsibility of health and social services boards and trusts to ensure that appropriate occupational therapy is provided to meet the assessed needs of children in their area, within available resources. In April 1999, the Department allocated them an additional £400,000 of recurrent funding to provide extra therapy for children of pre-school and school age. This year the Department established a joint working group with officials from the Department of Education to consider the therapy support required by children with special needs, and how that can best be provided. The work of the group will help to quantify unmet need and to inform service targeting, planning and the development of therapy services, including occupational therapy. The group is also exploring opportunities for joint-funded pilot projects to enhance service provision.


I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. Would her Department check the situation at Greenwood House Assessment Centre? The full-time occupational therapist there is due to go on maternity leave, but no replacement has been put forward yet. The assistant occupational therapist is not qualified to make assessments or reports and will return to Musgrave Park Hospital after Christmas. The centre will not be able to offer any occupational therapy services, thus denying children their legal right to receive special-needs education.


I will examine the issues raised by the Member. Had she wanted to include that much detail in the question, it would have been open for her to do so. The recruitment and retention of staff involve other issues. Boards and trusts seek to address the wider issues at all times and, at any given time, the specifics of the availability of trained staff in their centres.
The University of Ulster has increased from 50 to 60 the annual intake of students for its occupational therapy course. My Department is carrying out a comprehensive review of health and social services workforce planning to identify further measures that need to be taken to address specific issues in particular specialisms. The review will be completed next year.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In the light of the additional funding allocation to the boards, what action are health boards taking to address service deficits in their areas? We could all stand up at Question Time and ask questions about problems in our own areas; I thought that questions were supposed to be general.


It is open to Members to put specific questions or general questions. However, there is a convention in other places that if Members intend to ask a specific question as a supplementary they contact the Minister in advance so that a reasonable response may be given. It is easy to ask a general question, and to then home in on a specific point, but there is little purpose in that if a proper answer is required from the Minister — and that is the case for any Minister. The convention applies not just to Question Time, but in other contexts where a specific answer is requested of a Minister. On occasion, something unusual will arise, but if it is a Member’s intention to ask a supplementary, or a specific question in other contexts, the convention elsewhere is to give the Minister some notice. That makes an immediate reply a much easier prospect. I call the Minister to reply to the supplementary.


Health boards are taking specific actions to address existing identified pressures in their areas. As the pressures in board areas will not be identical, the measures and specific actions undertaken will be different.
The Eastern Health and Social Services Board is carrying out a review of occupational therapy services, including provision to children. The Southern Health and Social Services Board has secured Executive programme funding for a wrap-around pilot scheme to address the needs of children with disabilities. The Northern Health and Social Services Board is reviewing the health and social care needs of children with disabilities who are attending mainstream schools, and has just completed a review of the healthcare needs of children with life-limiting conditions. The Western Health and Social Services Board carrying out a review of its professions allied to medicine services.

Eastern Health and Social Services Board (Neurosurgeons)

6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what action has been taken to increase the number of neurosurgeons in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board area in general, and in the Royal Victoria Hospital in particular; and to make a statement.
(AQO 400/01)


Tá cúigear néarmháinlia comhairleach fostaithe ag Iontaobhas Ghrúpa na nOspidéal Ríoga. Soláthraíonn siad seo iomlán na seirbhísí néarmháinliachta ar fud cheithre limistéar boird.
Tá tacaíocht ag na comhairligh faoi láthair ó dhá shainoiliúnaithe. Tháinig folúntas i gceann de na poist sainoiliúnaithe le gairid agus táimid ag súil go gcuirfear dlús le hionadaí a fháil. Forálfaidh cothabháil thrí phost sainoiliúnaithe d’fholúntais comhairleach a thiocfadh chun cinn amach anseo trí scor ón obair nó trí bhunú post breise.
Five consultant neurosurgeons are employed by the Royal Group of Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust. These provide the totality of neurosurgical services across the four board areas. The consultants are currently supported by two specialist trainees. One further specialist trainee post has recently fallen vacant, and we expect replacement to be expedited. Maintenance of three specialist trainee posts will provide for future consultant vacancies arising through retirement or the establishment of additional posts.


I thank the Minister for her encouraging answer. As she may know, the reason that I asked that question was that I have been approached by a number of patients who have been on the waiting list for one or two years. The Minister has answered the question, but, for the record, does she agree that such waiting times are unacceptable?


We have said that everything must be done to ensure that we tackle the considerable question of waiting lists and waiting times in the specialities. This is no exception. However, consultant neurosurgeons represent only one element of the service provided, albeit a critical element. They depend on adequate support from anaesthetists, nurses and technical colleagues in providing the service. They also need adequate access to theatre facilities. Currently the five consultants in post have limited theatre access due to deficiencies in support staff. That is another element that we will be addressing urgently.


The Minister is aware of the dangerous situation that we have in neurosurgery in the Royal Victoria Hospital, which is also the main trauma hospital for Northern Ireland. Does she accept that additional to, and closely identified with, the shortage of neurosurgeons, is the necessity for appropriately trained post-neurosurgery intensive-care nurses? We should bear in mind that some patients have recently been sent home with brain tumours — gliomas — because the proper capacity in the hospital was not there either in neurosurgeons or appropriately trained intensive-care nurses.


Order. I am going to have to ask the Minister to reply in writing to the Member, should she choose to do so.


I have already replied.


The time is up for questions to the Minister.


Will you take a point of order now or after the next set of questions?


I will take it after the next set of questions. I do not normally take points of order during Question Time, though I did make a point to Members during the last set of questions. That is why we went over the 30 minutes, though not as far over as Dr Hendron might have liked.

Finance and Personnel
Review of Rating Policy

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in respect of the review of rating policy, to detail (a) the current position of the review (b) when the review will be finished and (c) what consultation will take place on this issue.
(AQO 401/01)


5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to provide an update on the review of rating policy, including the extent of the consultation process with district councils and other interested groups or individuals.
(AQO 412/01)


With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 1 and 5 together. The stage-one report covering analysis, issues and options, which is being drafted by an interdepartmental working group, will be finalised for consideration by the Executive in December. Following agreement on options to be considered, impact analysis will start before public consultation begins in around February 2002. The final report is due in July 2002.


Can the Minister give an indication that, whatever the outcome of the review, the least well-off in our society will be protected in the matter of paying rates?


The existing rate rebate scheme, as part of the social security system, already ensures that the impact of rates is lessened for those in the lower income bands, including a great number of those on fixed incomes in receipt of state pensions. I recognise, however, that many individuals who would not necessarily be considered as well off fall just outside the parameters of the rebate scheme as it currently exists. The review will address that difficult problem directly. The question of equity within the system is central to the review process.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister consider compensatory measures for those citizens living west of the Bann — where there is a marked deficit of services — in any new rating review?


The review of rating policy will examine how the rating system is structured and how rates are levied. It will try to ensure that equity is more strongly reflected in the new regime. However, when looking at rate levels, as they are levied across council districts, analysis shows that high rates tend to occur in district council areas that are more affluent while low rates tend to occur in less well-off areas. Departments and councils organise and provide services in different ways, and therefore there is no means of directly relating rates to local services.


Everyone welcomes the review of rates in Northern Ireland. However, it is important to consult with various agencies about the rates review. Will the Minister tell the House what groups and agencies he has been consulting in Northern Ireland?


An interdepartmental working group is involved in the review. Options emerging after the first stage will be subject to public consultation, and there will be no limit to the groups and agencies that may be consulted. All the groups on the Department’s consultation list for the equality scheme will be canvassed for their views, given that part of the focus will be on issues of equality and targeting social need. However, it will be an open and public consultation, and the Committee for Finance and Personnel will be fully involved.


What consultation has taken place in relation to the general grant that is available to district councils? Does the Minister realise the extra burden that that will put on councils — particularly those in the west — as they will have to raise rates to keep level with existing services because of the reduction in the general grant?


This question relates to the Budget rather than the rating policy review. If the Chairperson’s question is about whether there should be a review of how the resource grant is structured and how it is allocated, because the reduced funding envisaged for it in the draft Budget is having an impact on less well-off councils, then that is a matter for the Department of the Environment. That Department presides over the resource grant regime.

Trust Board Deficits

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail any discussions with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety concerning the review into trust board deficits; and to make a statement.
(AQO 375/01)


I met with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in February, specifically to discuss this matter. It is a significant issue, which has been covered in other budgetary discussions since then. It has also been considered by the Executive, as reflected by our decisions in February, June and July.


The Minister referred to the joint committee set up in February to review the situation. Through that committee, will he and the Minister of Health address the injustice and lack of parity in services rendered by trusts? This comes about because some trusts stick to their budgets and do not create deficits: they achieve this by cutting back on services in their localities. Other trusts exceed their budgets, create deficits, and give a better service. When does the Minister anticipate that action will be taken on this, and when will the reports come from the joint committees?


The review of trust deficits has been completed, and its work was the basis for the decisions taken in June and July and the subsequent announcements and discussions in the House previously. The question of the pattern of trust deficits, and the fact that not all trusts recorded deficits, is one that Members have previously addressed. It is a question that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety have been interested in.
It is not for me as Minister of Finance and Personnel to go into the details of specific trust decisions, or of how some trusts have taken steps to avoid deficits, whereas others have incurred deficits because of certain pressures and demands. Trusts with acute services seem to have had particular difficulty in avoiding deficits. That reflects the pattern of the pressures that those trusts are under. More detailed consideration is for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and her Department, and not for me.


I listened to the Minister’s answer very carefully. Will he indicate what issues were raised during his meetings with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety? Did they discuss the transfer of patients on the closure of a hospital, or indeed from one board area to another, and the financial pressures that creates for a trust? That was the case when the South Tyrone Hospital was closed, and patients were transferred to the Tyrone County Hospital.


The Member’s question should be answered by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Questions at this level of detailed service spend are not directly within my bailiwick as Minister of Finance and Personnel. Members will be aware, however, that allocations have been made in monitoring rounds in order to make good some of the pressures manifested as a result of previous decisions in relation to the South Tyrone Hospital.

Marginalised Communities (Resources)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what action he proposes to take to increase the allocation of resources to marginalised communities.
(AQO 403/01)


We are addressing the needs of marginalised communities in several ways. New targeting social need (TSN) is a policy theme that cuts across all areas of activity by trying to use more of our existing resources to benefit people in greatest objective social need, including those identified by the new Noble indicators.
All Budget proposals are evaluated for their New TSN implications. The Executive are considering the future priorities that should be addressed through the promoting social inclusion aspect of New TSN, and will be announcing new priorities shortly. The social inclusion Executive programme fund has been designed to focus resources on actions against poverty, as well as on community relations and cultural diversity. In addition, social integration, inclusion and reconciliation are key priorities of the new Peace II programme.
New TSN is one of the horizontal principles identified in the Northern Ireland community support framework. It is embedded in, and will be delivered through the implementation of, building sustainable prosperity and Peace II.


Does the Minister agree that given the level of poverty in communities, and the importance of education and health in increasing life chances and quality of life in marginalised communities, the current health and education budgets are inadequate and need to be addressed?


The health and education budgets are both the subject of Executive priority consideration, as reflected in the draft Budget. That is reflected in the fact that those two Departments have received the most significant uplifts on their newly projected allocation for next year, as opposed to what was in last December’s indicative allocation for next year. How Departments best target their allocations to meet their New TSN and equality obligations is a matter for the Departments themselves.

Human Rights Culture

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what steps he has taken to ensure the development of a human rights culture within his Department.
(AQO 402/01)


The Department of Finance and Personnel promotes awareness of human rights issues to all its staff, through tailored training courses and monitoring of case law. Central Personnel Group, given its central role, has also initiated Northern Ireland Civil Service- wide specialist training for senior Civil Service staff. Business areas in the Department have carried out assessments of legislation and procedures, and audits of policies to ensure compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998.


I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he explain to the House how promoting the human rights ethos will affect decisions on, for instance, the relocation of Civil Service jobs to allow people access to jobs closer to home? Will promoting human rights have an impact on that sort of decision?


Some of the issues mentioned by Mr C Murphy are more relevant to equality considerations and New TSN policies than to human rights as under the Human Rights Act 1998. As previously stated, equality, New TSN, the regional development strategy, efficiency and costs, for instance, are informing the work on the accommodation policy strategy review.

Land Register (Computerisation)

6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what action he proposes to take to help alleviate the disruption caused to the legal profession as a result of the computerisation of the land register.
(AQO 409/01)


The land register has significantly increased productivity in the past year as a result of computerisation. However, an estimated 25% increase in the workload in some areas has meant that backlogs and registration delays have not improved over that time. I have asked land registrars to make proposals for substantially reducing the backlog over the next 12 months and, as part of those proposals, to consider the possibility of delaying any further extension of compulsory first registration until the backlog is reduced. That would be of considerable benefit to the legal profession. Those proposals are to be submitted to me in the next few days.


The Minister will be aware that he has had representations from the Law Society of Northern Ireland on this and that it is not only solicitors who suffer from the disruption but mortgage lenders and other financiers too. There is a backlog with proof of title for home-buyers in County Down especially, where it appears to be worse than anywhere else. It would be appreciated if easing that backlog could be speeded up.


I am aware of the representations from the Law Society of Northern Ireland, and the Committee for Finance and Personnel has also relayed details of them to me. Not all the problems are as straightforward as some of those lobbying would suggest. If all the information received by land registrars, including information from the legal profession and others working in the property field, was accurate, delays and time spent on the misplaced activity sometimes involved would be reduced.
However, the land registrars appreciate the needs of their customers and know that their customers are not only those in the legal profession. They have already made good some of their commitments in recent months to secure improvements in the short term. The focus now is on trying to ensure that underlying improvements last for the longer term.

Barnett Formula

7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what steps he intends to take to secure further resources under the Barnett formula.
(AQO385/01)


Officials are examining the effects of operating the Barnett formula under the resource accounting and budgeting system and discussing them with the Treasury. The case for assessing the needs of public expenditure is being examined in the context of the six needs and effectiveness evaluations being undertaken in Departments. As already stated, the 2002 spending review sets the context for negotiations on the Barnett formula with the Treasury.


I think that I have been headed off at the pass, but nonetheless I want to ask the Minister two questions.
In the future, will he perhaps consider publishing a "fool’s guide" to the Barnett formula, as it is a complicated and mysterious method of establishing our Budget? Can he give more detail on how the change to resource accounting and budgeting will affect the formula, and how the six needs and effectiveness reviews will be used to support all the Barnett negotiations?


I think two questions became three; that is inflation for you. I wish the Barnett formula would work like that and give us more at the end than it started out offering.
To take the last point first, the work on the needs and effectiveness evaluations will provide the most basic and essential information for any negotiations we have with the Treasury. They are aimed at providing a clear and realistic assessment of our needs. We need to reflect that clearly in negotiations with the Treasury, and to seek a move to funding allocations which also reflect that need. In the context of the negotiations that we will face, we have to show that we are properly addressing the effectiveness issues as well. The needs and effectiveness evaluation exercises will throw up questions and issues for us as far as our own decisions and allocations are concerned, as well as issues that we will want to talk to the Treasury about.
Regarding the impact of resource accounting and budgeting, a significant issue — probably the most significant issue in respect of Barnett — is the question of capital charges and depreciation costs. Where those have been taken account of previously, as part of annually managed expenditure, they did not impact on the funds that were within our discretion under the departmental expenditure limit. With resource accounting and budgeting, they now will.
We have a very high capital base here compared to England. For example, many roads in England belong to local authorities and do not count in the departmental expenditure limits. Here, they will. Water and sewerage are not owned by central government in England and do not count under the departmental expenditure limits in resource accounting and budgeting. Here, they will. Even on the impact of resource accounting and budgeting alone, we have a significant case to argue for modification to the Barnett formula.
Regarding the publication of a "fool’s guide" to the Barnett formula, we will try to produce further information and advice on its operation, not just for Members but for wider public interests. People see different reports in various magazines and periodicals that slice the issue and represent it differently.


Does the Minister agree, or will he at least consider the possibility, that if the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety were divided in two — one Department for health, and another for social services and public safety — we could perhaps attract more funding through the Barnett formula?


There is no relationship between the number and functional responsibilities of Departments and the Barnett formula. I refer again to the point about water and sewerage, which do not count towards public expenditure in Britain. What we receive from the Barnett formula does not include an allocation for water and sewerage, so we have to make provision for that out of our own resources. Commitments such as that further squeeze the Barnett formula, and for those reasons we have to look to what it is we are going to do for ourselves through rates and revenue-raising. There is more work for us in analysing those issues than there is in restructuring Departments or reallocating responsibilities, as that will make no impact on what the Treasury allocates to us.

Social and Economic Marginalisation

8. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what steps he has taken to ensure that departmental procurement enhances the objectives of tackling social and economic marginalisation.
(AQO 405/01)


Although current procurement policy is driven by value for money and delivery against price, the integration of social and economic considerations in procurement offers the potential to ensure that that important activity is managed in a way that promotes and is consistent with our wider policy objectives.
I commissioned a review team to look at procurement, and it has made several recommendations. I have invited comments on the recommendations from external stakeholders by 30 November. After that date, the Executive will make a final decision.


Will the Minister give a personal commitment that social and economic issues will be kept at the centre of any departmental procurement procedures and that equality requirements will be adhered to? Go raibh maith agat.


Following on from the implementation review, one of our public procurement aims is to reduce the transaction costs so that we can re-deploy savings into vital areas of expenditure, not least to support broader social and economic policy. Although the policy of value for money will run through all areas of procurement, like letters through a stick of rock, it is also possible to achieve other multipliers, not only in the Executive’s social and economic policy, but in the environmental area.
I am committed to ensuring that public procurement achieves best value for money and also contributes to social and economic policy objectives. The workings of our procurement policy will support the course of action that we take in relation to our valid economic regional objective of improving our small- to medium- sized enterprises (SMEs). We are concerned about targeting social need, tackling long-term unemployment and trying to improve working opportunities for people with disabilities. Such initiatives, as well as good environmental standards, are supported by our policy of procurement activity.

Senior Civil Service Review

9. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what progress has been made regarding the Senior Civil Service review.
(AQO 382/01)


The first meeting of the review team took place on Monday 5 March. Since then, the team has considered and analysed a wide range of issues and undertaken a programme of consultation with key stakeholders and other interested parties. It is anticipated that the team will submit its report to me by mid-December, before the Executive make a final decision.


Will the Minister expand on his answer and give some detail on how wide-ranging the review will be? What level of consultation will take place?


The terms of reference for the review were deliberately broad to maximise the opportunity provided by such a review. Its four aims are: to ensure that current practices and procedures for appointment to and promotion within the Civil Service facilitate the business objectives of Departments and Ministers; speedily to enhance representation in the Senior Civil Service; to address and identify obstacles to fair participation by all sectors of the community; and to match best practice in other major public-and private-sector bodies. To ensure that those aims are addressed, the review team has consulted with 39 organisations or groups that represent the voluntary and public sectors, as well as the business community. That work is almost complete. The organisations and groups consulted included Executive Committee members, the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the Equality Commission, trade unions and other groups identified in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. There may be further consultation on specific measures, depending on proposals that emerge from the review.

Accommodation Review

10. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel when the accommodation review will be completed.
(AQO 383/01)


I anticipate a completion date of April 2002 for the Government accommodation review. The timetable incorporates proposals for the submission of an interim report by the consultants at the end of November.


After April 2002, who will decide which functions will be decentralised or relocated?


The consultants who are undertaking the review can only make recommendations. Once the review report is produced, the Executive will have to reach consensus on any accommodation implementation plan, taking into account the overall financial implications. That will involve value for money considerations and a range of other relevant policies, including equality, New TSN and the 2025 regional development strategy. It will fall to the Executive to bring forward proposals for the Assembly’s approval. For the information of some Members, I should clarify that it is not a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel to determine by directive what branch or division will move where. All Members should be aware that Departments have their own rights and responsibilities in those areas.


Questions 11 and 12 have been withdrawn and will receive written answers from the Minister.
Adjourned at 4.01 pm.

Education

Mr Speaker: Question 13, in the name of Mr Derek Hussey, has been withdrawn.

ICT Strategy

Mr Mick Murphy: 1. asked the Minister of Education what resources have been allocated to schools to further his ICT strategy and if the deployment of Classroom 2000 will take place within the expected timescale.
(AQO 392/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Department of Education met the £3 million costs of the education and library boards’ ‘connecting teachers to ICT’ programme, which trained teachers in core information and communication technology (ICT) skills in preparation for their training in the use of ICT in their subject areas. The new opportunities fund is funding the latter training with a grant of £10·81 million over three years. The Department has also assisted schools with that comprehensive training programme by providing £20 million for 12,000 laptop computers and almost 1,000 digital projectors, and by granting exceptional closure days that can be used for the training.
A further £15·8 million has been made available to enhance electrical and data cabling circuits in schools. I also recently announced an investment of £16 million to implement the Classroom 2000-managed services in 574 small primary schools over the next eight months. That is the first of several procurements that are well under way. The plan is to award the contract for the remaining primary schools at the end of January, and the contract for special and secondary schools before the end of this school year.
All that major investment is additional to the schools’ computer-based administration systems and the NINE Connect Internet services, which are already in place. It is envisaged that the Classroom 2000 managed services will be available in all schools by the start of the 2003 school year. Through the entire process, expenditure has been managed centrally in order to minimise the bureaucratic burden on schools, so that they can concentrate on the educational use of ICT.

Mr Mick Murphy: Is the Minister satisfied with the resources that have been allocated by the Minister of Finance and Personnel? Will they enable the Minister to implement the ICT strategy, including Classroom 2000?

Mr Martin McGuinness: ICT has an important role to play in education. When used effectively in teaching and learning, it helps to raise standards. Teachers have responded well to the challenge. I have no doubt that their training programme, the NINE Connect services and Classroom 2000 provide the kind of support that enables teachers and learners to be creative in their use of the new educational technologies.

Mr Derek Hussey: How does the Minister intend to address complaints that teachers receive inadequate and inappropriate computer training, and that they must undertake training at home, sustaining personal telephone charges?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have not heard those complaints, but if the Member forwards details of instances in which he believes that to have happened or about which complaints have been made to him, I will gladly have them investigated by my officials.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The younger generation has accepted IT as the new infrastructure for Northern Ireland. Does the Minister not consider the resources that he has announced today — and previously — inadequate to ensure sufficient provision to allow Northern Ireland to compete equally on the European scene?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Anyone who listened carefully to my answer to Mr Murphy would know that the Department of Education had put a great deal of finance into the development of Classroom 2000. During the recent negotiations, there have been some difficulties, which we are now well on our way to overcoming. The Department has put important resources directly into the classroom and will continue to do that in the coming months. It will pay off. Young people, teachers and everyone else in the education system understand the vital importance of ICT in the classroom.
As we have said recently, we are seeking to bring about a modern education system for a modern world and, indeed, for modern children, who are well up to the challenge. On my travels, I have been amazed by some 80-year-old "children" who think it important to attend training courses on ICT. There have been many examples of that, and there is a growing appreciation, particularly within education, of the importance of ICT in people’s lives.

Primary School Uniforms

Mr Danny Kennedy: 2. asked the Minister of Education what plans he has to introduce grants to assist the unemployed and those families on low incomes to buy primary school uniforms.
(AQO 389/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: Wearing a school uniform is not governed by legislation; it is a matter for each school’s board of governors. Given the pressure on the recurrent and capital education budgets, it would be extremely difficult to justify diverting scarce resources to that end. Therefore, I have no plans at present to extend eligibility for uniform grants to the primary sector.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Does the Minister accept that in many primary schools school uniforms are necessary, whether or not they are compulsory, because they help children to avoid being stigmatised or being seen as different? Does the Minister recognise the hardship and debt that is faced by many families? How can he justify uniform grants being given for post-primary school pupils and not for primary school pupils?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Generally, uniforms for primary schools are simple and cheaper. Most primary schools have a school tie that is distinctive, but the rest of the uniforms can usually be obtained from any of the major chain stores and, hence, at competitive prices. Some schools may require a sweater with distinctive piping, but that is not a major cost.
I must have regard to spending priorities, and my aim is to ensure that the maximum level of resources is directed to classrooms. Extending the clothing allowance scheme would be relatively expensive. A grant of £50 would cost an additional £2 million a year. Funding would have to come from elsewhere in the budget, and I cannot justify diverting resources to this at present.

Mr John Dallat: To follow up, can the Minister assure us that the additional cost of sports equipment, and so on, is no longer a source of embarrassment for families on low income? Whether it is a tennis racquet or a camogie stick, can he assure us that no child is embarrassed by not having one?

Mr Martin McGuinness: We are keen to see that no children are embarrassed by any situation that can develop in schools. Regarding school uniforms, the modest sum that is granted to families by the education and library boards is to deal with basic clothing. If we start supplying equipment for sporting occasions, the education budget will rocket. That is where important decisions have to be made.
Increasingly, the Department of Education is concerned to see that money goes directly to the classrooms. That is vital. Clothing grants are a matter for the education and library boards and parents. Dealing with the issue that the Member has raised would have to mean a substantial increase in my allocation from the block grant, and that would mean a huge battle in the Executive.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister said that boards of governors decide whether school uniforms should be worn, but what consultation is there? Is he in a position to direct a board of governors on that?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The individual school’s board of governors will decide whether the school should adopt a uniform. My Department has suggested to boards of governors that they consider the importance of ensuring, through school prospectuses, that parents are aware of the school’s policy on uniforms and its cost implications, especially for those parents on a low income.

School Transport

Mrs Annie Courtney: 3. asked the Minister of Education to detail the criteria used to determine the availability of free school transport.
(AQO 380/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: Legislation requires education and library boards to make such arrangements for the provision of transport as they consider necessary, or as are directed by the Department, to facilitate the attendance of pupils at grant-aided schools. The arrangements made by boards are subject to the Department’s approval.
The current approved arrangements, introduced in 1997, enable transport to be provided where pupils have been unable to gain a place in all suitable schools within statutory walking distance of their home: that is two miles for primary school pupils and three miles for others, measured by the nearest available route.
The term "suitable school" relates to the established educational categories of controlled, Catholic maintained, integrated and Irish-medium schools, and, in the grammar sector, denominational and non-denominational schools.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Is the Minister aware of the anomaly that exists in the Foyle constituency? Parents are advised, when their son leaves primary school, to nominate a school that is not his first choice. Parents do this in the knowledge that their child will not be accepted because of enhanced criteria used at that school to determine those entitled to free school transport. If they do not go through that procedure, the parents must pay for their child to attend the grammar school of their choice. That issue needs to be addressed.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The transport arrangements must be administered fairly and equitably. Many grammar schools admit pupils with lower test grades. The guidance makes it clear that to qualify for transport assistance to a school outside statutory walking distance, parents must formally apply for and be refused a place in all schools in the chosen category that are within statutory walking distance. No exceptions are made on the basis of possible rejection by nearer schools. That does not affect the likelihood of a child being admitted to other schools, as the order of preference expressed by parents may not be included in schools’ admission criteria. Any child refused a place at a nearer school would have his or her application for admission to more distant schools considered on its own merits and on an equal footing with all other applications received by the school.

Mr Tom Hamilton: Will the Minister give an assessment of the recommendations made by the Committee for the Environment in its recent report into transport used by children travelling to and from school?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I welcome the Committee’s report and assure the Assembly that my Department and the education and library boards take their responsibilities in relation to safety seriously. I shall consider the Committee’s recommendations. We must, however, recognise that the full implementation of its recommendations would require significant additional resources. Some £42 million would be needed for capital costs, as well as £23 million for running costs to remove standing passengers on school buses and the three-for-two seating arrangement. Further substantial costs would be associated with other recommendations, such as the installation of seat belts. There is a need for detailed costings and clear evidence of the benefits that would be accrued through the implementation of those recommendations before any decision is made.

Post-primary Review

Mr Gerry McHugh: 4. asked the Minister of Education to outline his plans in respect of the consultation process for the second phase of the post-primary review.
(AQO394/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Burns review body’s report is significant for the education system. I launched an extended consultation period to ensure that everyone with an interest will have the opportunity to consider the proposals and submit their views. The report has been sent to all MLAs, schools, education partners, further and higher education institutions, district councils, and business and community organisations.
It is available to the public and libraries on the Department’s web site and on request from the Department. In view of the report’s complexity, I asked the review body to undertake a programme of information seminars for teachers, principals, school governors and education and related bodies. Five seminars have been held already, and nine more will take place in the next few weeks.
This consultation presents a unique opportunity for us to shape our education system for the future. I urge all who have an interest or an opinion to submit their views in writing to my Department by 17 May 2002.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given the need for change in post-primary school provision, does the Minister not think that the consultation period is too long, and that it delays unnecessarily the implementation of a new and better post-primary system?

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is important to take sufficient time to agree the best way forward rather than to rush into ill-considered change. These matters are vital to the future of our education system. For that reason, I decided that there should be an extended consultation period. Our overriding objective must be to create an education system that will enable all children to reach their full potential. I intend to consider carefully all the responses we receive, and proposals for future post-primary arrangements will be discussed by the Executive, the Education Committee and the Assembly.
I have been heartened by how the debate has been conducted by everyone — educationalists, schools, teachers, principals, boards of governors and the Assembly — not only during the last couple of weeks, but over some 18 months. Many parties have made a huge contribution towards the sensible and mature discussions that we must have if we are to deal with such an important issue for children and the education system. I want to pay tribute to Assembly Members, who have adopted a well-considered approach to this. By the way in which they have contributed to the debate, they have shown that the prospects and opportunities for children are much more important than anything else. That is encouraging. I hope that people will continue to think carefully about this. From next January they can contribute to a debate which is vital to everyone.

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the Minister agree that the abolition of academic selection, as recommended in the Burns report on post-primary education, will have a detrimental effect on the standard of education in Northern Ireland?

Mr Martin McGuinness: First, we should pay tribute to Gerry Burns and the review body for producing an important report. What is pleasing about the review is that it places children at the centre of its thinking. It places the needs and rights of all children above the preservation of structures, which is crucial.
Those who have been involved in considering the weighty body of research which has recently been put before us know that there are serious weaknesses in the education system. The research conducted by Prof Tony Gallagher from Queen’s University and Prof Alan Smith from the University of Ulster, together with the work carried out by Save the Children and the Education Committee, has shown up those weaknesses. The Committee has made it clear that we must accept that change is necessary and appropriate, and the Assembly has endorsed that.
We know the difficulties that exist. Much of children’s time is wasted in preparing for the transfer test — at the expense of real learning. One third of children who benefit from a grammar school education do so at the expense of the two thirds who are regarded as failures. The confidence and self-esteem of those two thirds takes a terrible knock that is difficult to restore in the secondary sector. Inevitably, the selection process also leaves a long tail of low-achieving schools. Only 10% of children from low-income families make it to grammar schools. Indeed, that figure is as low as 2% in the Shankill Road area. That is totally unacceptable and makes a very convincing case for change.
Change is needed. The fact that the Committee for Education and the Burns review body have spoken on this indicates that their approach is correct. We need an education system based on equality, excellence, choice and accessibility. The big challenge for us is to provide an education system where all children — irrespective of their backgrounds or circumstances — can realise their potential. We need a modern education system that caters for all children and gives them the confidence and encouragement to move into a new era.

AS Level Examinations

Mr Tommy Gallagher: 5. asked the Minister of Education to detail the number of pupils who took examinations at AS level last year.
(AQO 386/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The only information that is currently available relates to candidates who took GCE AS levels with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). There were 9,561 such candidates, including students at further education colleges, with a total of 19,104 subject entries.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: There was a good deal of confusion last year among the public, schools and some of the examination boards. Will the Minister consider taking any steps to prevent a repetition of such confusion this year — particularly as the AS level examinations will be accompanied by the introduction of examinations at A2 level?

Mr Martin McGuinness: On 12 September, I announced new arrangements that will benefit all concerned, both in the number of modular examinations that are taken and in the reduced possibility of timetable clashes. Pupils will now be able to take all the written examination requirements of a full AS level in a single half- day session of up to three hours, instead of a possible four and a half hours in separate sessions. That will mean fewer examinations and, therefore, less chance of timetable clashes.
Further work from the CCEA and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has been commissioned. I will consider what further action is required on receipt of those reports, which are due to be completed by the end of December.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What other action might the Minister take to deal with concerns from parents and pupils regarding AS levels?

Mr Martin McGuinness: As I said in my previous answer, I have already announced new arrangements that will benefit everybody concerned. We have looked carefully at the way that AS levels have been managed. They are a comparatively new development. We would have been surprised if there had been no initial hiccups or difficulties to be addressed. We have certainly addressed the problems that have been brought to our attention. Problems have been created, not least for pupils, parents and teachers.
The steps we have taken, however, will serve to alleviate those difficulties, and we hope that the problems of the last year will not be repeated.

Mr George Savage: The Minister answered part of my question, but I will ask it nevertheless. Will he take steps to ensure that one age cohort is not singled out and used repeatedly for future educational experiments?

Mr Martin McGuinness: We are not interested in experimenting with our children. They are too precious a resource. However, we will certainly look — as we do on all occasions — at the particular problems and difficulties which beset us in education. In whatever decision we take, we will ensure that any problems present are overcome.

Capital Expenditure

Mr Sammy Wilson: 6. asked the Minister of Education to outline the timetable for the announcement of schools capital expenditure.
(AQO 396/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I hope to announce the schools capital programme in March 2002, following consultation with the Education Committee.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Will the Minister give the Assembly an assurance that when proposals are brought forward next year we will not see the same imbalance as that in evidence over the last two years? Two years ago the ratio of capital spend between the maintained and controlled sectors was 3:1. Last year it was 2:1. Can he assure us that this time there will be an even spread of money?
Perhaps while he is at it the Minister could explain to the House how Members can accept any assurances from him, given yesterday’s revelations that he was engaged in handing out bombs to youngsters in Londonderry and organising the murder of a schoolteacher.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member put a supplementary question, the second part of which did not relate to the original question.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Some journalists do not let the truth get in the way of what they consider to be a good story.
Concerning the first issue raised by Mr Wilson, I say categorically that the allegations he made were untrue and unjustified. I have consistently maintained that the schools capital building programme is determined by educational needs, be they in controlled or voluntary schools or in any other schools sector. The make-up of last year’s conventional school building programme was six Catholic maintained school projects, costing £25·7 million; 10 controlled school projects, costing £24·1 million, including two special schools which were the capital priorities of two education and library boards; and one grant maintained integrated school project, costing £12·5 million. In addition, provision was included for eight secondary projects with a total capital value of approximately £70 million under public-private partnership, and those are grouped under three separate contracting authorities. The Trustees of Catholic Maintained Schools in the Derry diocese have been allocated £34 million, the North Eastern Education and Library Board, £15 million and the South Eastern Education and Library Board, £21 million.

Mr Jim Wilson: I accept that the Minister will wish to reserve his right to deal with the detail of his capital expenditure plans in accordance with his Department’s timetable. However, will he assure me that projects where a clear need has been identified, or where a site has been purchased and an economic appraisal completed, will receive priority? The new buildings for Loanends Primary School in my constituency of South Antrim are an example, particularly because the board of that school hoped to be among the new starts for the last financial year.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I certainly appreciate the concerns of schools and their authorities who have advanced their projects by completing an economic appraisal. My point of view, and that of the Department of Education, has always been that that is a prerequisite of ensuring a school’s eligibility for a place in the programme. Projects must be supported by an economic appraisal and be at a suitable stage of planning.
Projects are selected according to educational need, not the length of time that they have spent on the schools’ planning list.

Mr Eddie McGrady: How will the Executive’s commitment to measures such as rural proofing, equality and social inclusion influence the Minister’s decisions on the new starts programme for 2002–03? It will come as no surprise to him if I refer to the areas that I represent. St Patrick’s Grammar School, Downpatrick, has waited for 18 years; its counterpart, Assumption Grammar School, Ballynahinch, is on the waiting list, and the rural Mourne area of Moneydarragh is in urgent need of a new primary school. How can those specific examples be brought into line with rural-proofing and social-inclusion commitments?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Under the new starts programme, available capital resources are directed at the highest- priority cases, based on educational need. That encompasses the areas of social inclusion and equality, and ensures that rural communities have access to a network of strong rural schools. The Department of Education’s equality scheme provides for the school building programme to be subject to an equality impact assessment in the next financial year.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Rehabilitation Facilities

Mrs Annie Courtney: 1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she has any plans to increase rehabilitation facilities for those in the north- west with head injuries; and to make a statement.
(AQO 381/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Choimisiúnaigh mo Roinn an Cuibhreannas Réigiúnach Seirbhísí Míochaine le moltaí a fhorbairt do sheirbhís gortuithe inchinne. Tá feidhmiú a mholtaí á thabhairt ar aghaidh ag na ceithre bhord seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta, agus aird á tabhairt ar riachtanais mheasta a ndaonraí agus na hacmhainní atá ar fáil. Tugann Bord an Iarthair le fios gur fhorbair sé straitéis le frestal ar riachtanais daoine fásta le gortú inchinne agus go bhfuil sé i mbun a fheidhmithe.
Go dtí seo tá cúig leaba tiomanta ag an bhord i dTeach Spruce i gcomhair measúnú, athshlánú agus cúram faoisimh míochaine do dhaoine le gortú inchinne, agus tá seirbhísí pobail á bhforbairt trí sholáthar fhoireann athshlánaithe pobail ildísciplíneach.
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety commissioned the Regional Medical Services Consortium to develop proposals for a regional brain injury service. The four health and social services boards are addressing the implementation of its recommedations by considering the assessed needs of their populations and the available resources.
The Western Health and Social Services Board has developed a strategy to meet the needs of adults with brain injury and is in the process of implementing it. To date, the board has committed five beds in Spruce House to the assessment, rehabilitation and respite medical care of people with brain injuries. Community services are being developed through the provision of a multi-disciplinary community rehabilitation team. A neuropsychologist and a social worker have been appointed. Funding has also been made available to facilitate the development of other specific community rehabilitation services in the Foyle Health and Social Services Trust and the Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Services Trust.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I thank the Minister for her response. I was also referring to those young people who are paralysed by a serious head injury. Unfortunately, no treatment facilities exist in the north-west. I know of young men aged 22 and 23 who receive treatment 75 miles from their homes. Members can imagine the extra expense that those families incur should they wish to visit their sons every day. Moreover, there is the added problem of where those people will be treated once they go home. That is a problem for many of my constituents, and I would like the Minister to address it.

Mr Speaker: I was about to ask the Member whether she was coming to a question. I presume that the question is whether the Minister will look at the issue.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: All boards are developing multidisciplinary community brain injury teams in keeping with the findings of the Regional Medical Services Consortium. The need for further community provision is constantly under review, and services are developed as funding permits.

Mr Francie Molloy: What action is being taken to prevent or reduce head injuries?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Prevention is a major part of the Executive’s health and well-being priority area, as we strive to improve the population’s health. Males are four times more likely to receive brain injuries than females, and the peak age for such injuries is 15 to 25 years. A third of those injuries are associated with alcohol, and road traffic accidents account for 60% of such cases. The Executive are advancing the cross-departmental drug and alcohol strategy. Public drink-driving campaigns target young males, in an attempt to reduce road traffic accidents, which are the main cause of head injuries in that at-risk group.

Downe Hospital (Withdrawal of Maternity Services)

Mr Mick Murphy: 2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make a statement on the proposed withdrawal of maternity services from the Downe Hospital.
(AQO 398/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Is eol domh gur cúis imní í forbairt chritéir aistrithe ardphriacail ag aonad Otharlann an Dúin.
Mar sin féin, féadaim a dhearbhú don Chomhalta gur chuir mé in iúl do Bhord an Oirthir agus do Iontaobhas an Dúin Lios na gCearrbhach go gcaithfear gach iarracht a dhéanamh le próifíl seirbhíse Ospidéal an Dúin a choinneáil, ag brath ar chinní a ghlacfar mar gheall ar thorthaí athbhreithniú na n-ospidéal géarchúraim. Is eol domh gur ghlac an bord agus an t-iontaobhas céimeanna suntasacha le haonad máithreachais an Dúin a chothabháil.
I am aware of the concerns that have arisen from the development of high-risk transfer criteria at the Downe Hospital unit. However, I can assure the Member that I have made it clear to the Eastern Board and the Down Lisburn Trust that every effort must be made to sustain the current service profile of Downe Hospital, pending decisions made following the acute hospitals review. I am aware that the board and the trust have already taken several significant steps to maintain the Downe maternity unit.

Mr Mick Murphy: Why did the Eastern Health and Social Services Board carry out a further assessment of service in only the Downe Maternity unit, after it had carried out a risk assessment for all the maternity units in the board area last year? Why, following that, did it issue further instructions to staff on criteria for determining high-risk maternity cases? Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: All maternity units in the Eastern Board area were advised to formalise their criteria for high-risk transfers in 1999. Lagan Valley Hospital completed the work in 1999 and implemented the criteria for admissions to the unit. I have been advised that no further assessment was carried out at the Downe Hospital. The Downe maternity unit did not finalise its criteria in 1999 and requested an extension until September 2001. The Mater Hospital is in the process of finalising its criteria. I understand that transfer criteria have been introduced at Lagan Valley Hospital and that a revision of risk criteria is nearing completion at the Mater Hospital’s maternity unit. Trusts are required to review risk assessments in all maternity units continually, and the screening of referrals at the Downe maternity unit was examined as part of that process.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I thank the Minister for her assurance about the continuing delivery of good maternity care in Downpatrick, but how could she allow a small number of centralised professionals to continue to threaten the provision of maternity and other acute services in our area? Is she content that she and the Department should continue to follow the diktat of those key professionals?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: In my main answer, I signalled my clear intention that every effort would be made to sustain the current service profile of all hospitals, pending decisions made following the acute hospitals review. The board and the trust have already taken steps to sustain the Downe maternity unit. Arrangements involving anaesthetists from Belfast have been introduced to maintain a robust anaesthetic service at the Downe Hospital, and those are reported to be working well. Five extra theatre nurses have been appointed to assist with the 24-hour anaesthetic rota, and the training programme for midwives has been reviewed so that all midwives are now offered the opportunity of advanced life support training.
Those measures demonstrate a clear commitment to sustaining maternity services at the Downe Hospital — that commitment is evident in the work of all the professionals in that unit. As a result of anaesthetists’ concerns, in January 2001 the Down Lisburn Trust asked the board to arrange for the high-risk pregnancy group to complete its work on the screening of referrals to the unit as soon as is practicable. However, that work was undertaken in the context of an ongoing risk assessment initiated in all units in the board area in 1999.

Acute Hospitals Services

Mr Eddie McGrady: 3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety when she will make her formal response to the Hayes report on acute hospitals services; and to make a statement.
(AQO 374/01)

Acute Hospitals Review Group Report

Mr Tommy Gallagher: 12. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail the number of responses to her consultation on the report of the acute hospitals review group.
(AQO 384/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Le do chead, a Cheann Comhairle, glacfaidh mé ceisteanna 3 agus 12 le chéile mar go mbaineann siad araon le tuairisc an ghrúpa athbhreithnithe ar ospidéil ghéarchúraim. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall answer questions 3 and 12 together, as they both relate to the acute hospitals review group report.
Tháinig an tréimhse chomhairliúcháin ar an tuairisc chun críche ar an 31 Deireadh Fómhair. Fuarthas isteach agus amach le 60,000 freagairt scríofa. Áirítear orthu sin thart ar 24,000 cárta poist agus litir ag tacú leis an chás go mbeadh ospidéal géarchúraim san Ómaigh, thart ar 35,000 ag tacú le hospidéal géarchúraim in Inis Ceithleann agus thart ar 500 ag tacú le soláthar seirbhísí géarchúraim in ospidéil áitiúla eile. I ndiaidh torthaí an phróisis chomhairliúcháin phoiblí a bhreithniú agus plé a dhéanamh le Comhghleacaithe ar an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin, is féidir moltaí ar an bhealach chun tosaigh a chur faoi chomhairliúchán. Tá súil agam bheith i riocht cinní a fhógairt i rith 2002.
Consultation on the report ended on 31 October. Some 60,000 written responses have been received, including about 24,000 postcards and letters supporting the case for an acute hospital in Omagh, around 35,000 supporting an acute hospital in Enniskillen, and around 500 supporting the provision of acute services in other local hospitals. Following consideration of the outcome of the public consultation process and discussion with Executive Colleagues, proposals on the way forward can be put out for consultation. I hope to be able to announce decisions in 2002.

Mr Eddie McGrady: There is concern in many areas — particularly rural areas — about the extended delay in the consideration of the Hayes report. Although the consultation period has just expired, I urge the Minister to bring forward the expected date of the departmental response, particularly in the light of the answer that she has just given about the Downe Hospital, because the maternity unit and the acute hospital are interdependent. The Minister does not seem to understand what is happening on the ground, despite a letter sent to her on 4 October by the Royal College of Midwives. It advised that, unless immediate action is taken on the maternity issue, the Downe Hospital will be closed, because new criteria introduced six weeks ago, without reference to any other Department or hospital, will be implemented in Downpatrick with discrimination.

Mr Speaker: Does the Member have a question? That seemed to be a statement.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I asked the Minister when she will bring forward the review of the review of the review, so that the maternity unit that she was so concerned about can be saved and does not cease to exist before the review is completed.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The issues involved are far-reaching, as illustrated by the many responses to the consultation. They affect many people, who have a right to have a say in decisions that affect their lives and shape their services. Indeed, the major scope and scale of the matters involved are such that they go far beyond the remit of my Department, and the way forward must be considered by the Executive. Under statutory equality duties, the equality implications will be subject to assessment and consultation.
Were I to move forward without taking any of those steps, I am sure that the Member would be the first to draw to my attention the need to do otherwise. Officials will now examine and analyse the responses, and the Executive must do likewise. We hope that proposals on the way forward can then be put out to consultation as soon as possible.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I thank the Minister for the figures that she has given us. They reflect the high level of concern in the Fermanagh and Omagh areas about the provision of acute hospital services. In view of that, will the Minister give an undertaking to the people in both areas that services will be retained in those hospitals at their current levels, while we await her decision on the location of a new hospital for the south-west?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have signalled that I expect the current profile of services in hospitals to be maintained, and I expect boards and trusts to make every effort to ensure that they are maintained pending decisions following the outcome of the report of the acute hospitals review group. My officials are in constant contact with the Western Health and Social Services Board and both trusts to ensure that any interim difficulties arising in the trusts can be looked at urgently, as is being done in other board areas.

Mr Jim Shannon: When will the acute services at the Ulster Hospital be upgraded? How can a service be delivered when the local hospital trust has been told that the number one priority is to break even, and not to spend over its budget? If this continues, there will be deaths, which will be down to the inability and unwillingness of the Minister and her Department to get on with the job. Will the Health Department remove the break-even criteria?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I am not certain that the question is specific to the matter being discussed.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I will have to learn this new trick of asking two supplementaries in one question. Have the Executive had any opportunity to discuss the financial implications of the Hayes report?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: It is for the Executive to decide what will be on their agenda. However, it is clear that the Executive are aware of the considerable resource implications, given the amount and the scope of the recommendations made in the acute hospitals’ review. The Executive will have to examine the issue, and the financial and serious resource implications will have to be taken on board. It is not possible to say exactly when this will take place. The substantial volume of responses is being analysed by officials, and meetings are being arranged with those who asked to meet with me before the consultation period ended.

Prescription Fraud

Rev Robert Coulter: 4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what steps she has taken to deal with prescription fraud.
(AQO 391/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tá tosaíocht á tabhairt ag mo Roinn do thabhairt faoi chalaois díolúine oideas agus is cuid é de mhórchlár gníomhaíochta le cur i gcoinne calaoise, is cuma cé acu daoine as an phobal nó liachleachtóirí a dhéanann é. Tugadh faoi mhéid suntasach oibre cheana féin agus táthar i mbun troda i gcoinne chalaois oideas. Mar shampla, tugadh isteach seiceálacha pointí dáilte, bunaíodh aonad tiomanta frithchalaoise in Eanáir na bliana seo le díriú ar phríomhréimsí na mí-úsáide díolúine, agus le 18 mí anuas tugadh níos mó ná 120 duine tríd an Chúirt Mhionéileamh leis na muirir oideas a seachnaíodh a ghnóthú.
Tackling prescription exemption fraud is a priority of my Department, and part of a major programme of action to counter fraud, whether perpetrated by members of the public or practitioners. Significant work to combat prescription fraud is ongoing. For example, points of dispensing checks have been introduced, and a dedicated counter-fraud unit was established in January 2001 to target the main areas of exemption abuse. Over the last 18 months more than 120 members of the public have been taken through the small claims court procedure to recover the prescription charges evaded.
Next year the Department intends to introduce fixed penalty fines of up to £100, to penalise those who fraudulently claim exemption from prescription payments. Individuals who have been found to have repeatedly evaded payment of prescription charges could be prosecuted and fined up to £2,500. Those measures represent a major advance in deterring members of the public from fraudulently claiming exemption from payment of prescription charges thereby securing additional resources for the Health Service.

Rev Robert Coulter: How much money has been earmarked to carry out those procedures? How much money will be saved as a result of those procedures in the coming year?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I cannot tell the Member the precise cost of carrying out those procedures. That will depend on how long the procedures take and whether the payment is forthcoming immediately or has to be pursued through a small claims court, for example. It is estimated that in the 2000-01 financial year some £9·5 million was lost to the Health Service on account of false claims of exemption from prescription charges. During the same period, income realised from prescription charges was £10·1 million. The annual loss due to prescription exemption fraud has decreased from £11 million, in 1999-2000, to £9·5 million in 2000-01. However, those figures do not reflect the full impact of the counter-fraud unit, which became fully operational in January 2001.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What is the role of the counter-fraud unit?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The counter-fraud unit, which is based in the Central Services Agency, has a dual remit. It is responsible for the detection and follow-up of exemption fraud cases. It is also responsible for the investigation of cases of suspected fraud by the public and by practitioners.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: The figures that the Minister quotes are staggering. How do figures relating to prescription fraud in Northern Ireland compare with those for other regions in the United Kingdom?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The Department does not have comparable figures for incidents of prescription fraud. In Northern Ireland the rate of prescription exemption claims, including prepayment certificates, is 90%. That figure compares with 90% in Scotland and 85% in England.

Special Needs Assessment Centres (Occupational Therapy)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail arrangements to ensure that adequate and appropriate resources are made available for occupational therapy for children in special-needs assessment centres.
(AQO 377/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Is faoi na hiontaobhais agus na boird seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta atá sé a chinntiú go gcuirtear teiripe shaothair ar fáil le freastal ar riachtanais mheasta leanaí ina limistéir, agus aird á tabhairt acu ar na hacmhainní atá ar fáil dóibh. In Aibreán 1999 leithdháil mo Roinn £400,000 athfhillteach orthu do sholáthar breise teiripe do leanaí réamhscolaíochta agus in aois scoile.
I mbliana, bhunaigh mo Roinn comhghrúpa oibre le feidhmeannaigh ón Roinn Oideachais le breithniú a dhéanamh ar an tacaíocht teiripe a theastaíonn ó leanaí le riachtanais speisialta agus an bealach is fearr leis an tacaíocht sin a sholáthar. Cuideoidh obair an ghrúpa cainníocht a dhéanamh ar na riachtanais nár freastaladh orthu go dtí seo, agus eolas a thabhairt ar spriocdhíriú, pleanáil agus forbairt seirbhíse na seirbhísí teiripe, teiripe shaothair san áireamh. Tá an grúpa ag fiosrú deiseanna chomh maith do thionscadail phíolótacha cómhaoinithe le soláthar seirbhíse a mhéadú.
It is the responsibility of health and social services boards and trusts to ensure that appropriate occupational therapy is provided to meet the assessed needs of children in their area, within available resources. In April 1999, the Department allocated them an additional £400,000 of recurrent funding to provide extra therapy for children of pre-school and school age. This year the Department established a joint working group with officials from the Department of Education to consider the therapy support required by children with special needs, and how that can best be provided. The work of the group will help to quantify unmet need and to inform service targeting, planning and the development of therapy services, including occupational therapy. The group is also exploring opportunities for joint-funded pilot projects to enhance service provision.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. Would her Department check the situation at Greenwood House Assessment Centre? The full-time occupational therapist there is due to go on maternity leave, but no replacement has been put forward yet. The assistant occupational therapist is not qualified to make assessments or reports and will return to Musgrave Park Hospital after Christmas. The centre will not be able to offer any occupational therapy services, thus denying children their legal right to receive special-needs education.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I will examine the issues raised by the Member. Had she wanted to include that much detail in the question, it would have been open for her to do so. The recruitment and retention of staff involve other issues. Boards and trusts seek to address the wider issues at all times and, at any given time, the specifics of the availability of trained staff in their centres.
The University of Ulster has increased from 50 to 60 the annual intake of students for its occupational therapy course. My Department is carrying out a comprehensive review of health and social services workforce planning to identify further measures that need to be taken to address specific issues in particular specialisms. The review will be completed next year.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In the light of the additional funding allocation to the boards, what action are health boards taking to address service deficits in their areas? We could all stand up at Question Time and ask questions about problems in our own areas; I thought that questions were supposed to be general.

Mr Speaker: It is open to Members to put specific questions or general questions. However, there is a convention in other places that if Members intend to ask a specific question as a supplementary they contact the Minister in advance so that a reasonable response may be given. It is easy to ask a general question, and to then home in on a specific point, but there is little purpose in that if a proper answer is required from the Minister — and that is the case for any Minister. The convention applies not just to Question Time, but in other contexts where a specific answer is requested of a Minister. On occasion, something unusual will arise, but if it is a Member’s intention to ask a supplementary, or a specific question in other contexts, the convention elsewhere is to give the Minister some notice. That makes an immediate reply a much easier prospect. I call the Minister to reply to the supplementary.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Health boards are taking specific actions to address existing identified pressures in their areas. As the pressures in board areas will not be identical, the measures and specific actions undertaken will be different.
The Eastern Health and Social Services Board is carrying out a review of occupational therapy services, including provision to children. The Southern Health and Social Services Board has secured Executive programme funding for a wrap-around pilot scheme to address the needs of children with disabilities. The Northern Health and Social Services Board is reviewing the health and social care needs of children with disabilities who are attending mainstream schools, and has just completed a review of the healthcare needs of children with life-limiting conditions. The Western Health and Social Services Board carrying out a review of its professions allied to medicine services.

Eastern Health and Social Services Board (Neurosurgeons)

Mrs Eileen Bell: 6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what action has been taken to increase the number of neurosurgeons in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board area in general, and in the Royal Victoria Hospital in particular; and to make a statement.
(AQO 400/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tá cúigear néarmháinlia comhairleach fostaithe ag Iontaobhas Ghrúpa na nOspidéal Ríoga. Soláthraíonn siad seo iomlán na seirbhísí néarmháinliachta ar fud cheithre limistéar boird.
Tá tacaíocht ag na comhairligh faoi láthair ó dhá shainoiliúnaithe. Tháinig folúntas i gceann de na poist sainoiliúnaithe le gairid agus táimid ag súil go gcuirfear dlús le hionadaí a fháil. Forálfaidh cothabháil thrí phost sainoiliúnaithe d’fholúntais comhairleach a thiocfadh chun cinn amach anseo trí scor ón obair nó trí bhunú post breise.
Five consultant neurosurgeons are employed by the Royal Group of Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust. These provide the totality of neurosurgical services across the four board areas. The consultants are currently supported by two specialist trainees. One further specialist trainee post has recently fallen vacant, and we expect replacement to be expedited. Maintenance of three specialist trainee posts will provide for future consultant vacancies arising through retirement or the establishment of additional posts.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for her encouraging answer. As she may know, the reason that I asked that question was that I have been approached by a number of patients who have been on the waiting list for one or two years. The Minister has answered the question, but, for the record, does she agree that such waiting times are unacceptable?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: We have said that everything must be done to ensure that we tackle the considerable question of waiting lists and waiting times in the specialities. This is no exception. However, consultant neurosurgeons represent only one element of the service provided, albeit a critical element. They depend on adequate support from anaesthetists, nurses and technical colleagues in providing the service. They also need adequate access to theatre facilities. Currently the five consultants in post have limited theatre access due to deficiencies in support staff. That is another element that we will be addressing urgently.

Dr Joe Hendron: The Minister is aware of the dangerous situation that we have in neurosurgery in the Royal Victoria Hospital, which is also the main trauma hospital for Northern Ireland. Does she accept that additional to, and closely identified with, the shortage of neurosurgeons, is the necessity for appropriately trained post-neurosurgery intensive-care nurses? We should bear in mind that some patients have recently been sent home with brain tumours — gliomas — because the proper capacity in the hospital was not there either in neurosurgeons or appropriately trained intensive-care nurses.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am going to have to ask the Minister to reply in writing to the Member, should she choose to do so.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have already replied.

Mr Speaker: The time is up for questions to the Minister.

Mr Derek Hussey: Will you take a point of order now or after the next set of questions?

Mr Speaker: I will take it after the next set of questions. I do not normally take points of order during Question Time, though I did make a point to Members during the last set of questions. That is why we went over the 30 minutes, though not as far over as Dr Hendron might have liked.

Finance and Personnel

Review of Rating Policy

Mrs Annie Courtney: 1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in respect of the review of rating policy, to detail (a) the current position of the review (b) when the review will be finished and (c) what consultation will take place on this issue.
(AQO 401/01)

Mr Barry McElduff: 5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to provide an update on the review of rating policy, including the extent of the consultation process with district councils and other interested groups or individuals.
(AQO 412/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 1 and 5 together. The stage-one report covering analysis, issues and options, which is being drafted by an interdepartmental working group, will be finalised for consideration by the Executive in December. Following agreement on options to be considered, impact analysis will start before public consultation begins in around February 2002. The final report is due in July 2002.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Can the Minister give an indication that, whatever the outcome of the review, the least well-off in our society will be protected in the matter of paying rates?

Mr Mark Durkan: The existing rate rebate scheme, as part of the social security system, already ensures that the impact of rates is lessened for those in the lower income bands, including a great number of those on fixed incomes in receipt of state pensions. I recognise, however, that many individuals who would not necessarily be considered as well off fall just outside the parameters of the rebate scheme as it currently exists. The review will address that difficult problem directly. The question of equity within the system is central to the review process.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister consider compensatory measures for those citizens living west of the Bann — where there is a marked deficit of services — in any new rating review?

Mr Mark Durkan: The review of rating policy will examine how the rating system is structured and how rates are levied. It will try to ensure that equity is more strongly reflected in the new regime. However, when looking at rate levels, as they are levied across council districts, analysis shows that high rates tend to occur in district council areas that are more affluent while low rates tend to occur in less well-off areas. Departments and councils organise and provide services in different ways, and therefore there is no means of directly relating rates to local services.

Mr William Hay: Everyone welcomes the review of rates in Northern Ireland. However, it is important to consult with various agencies about the rates review. Will the Minister tell the House what groups and agencies he has been consulting in Northern Ireland?

Mr Mark Durkan: An interdepartmental working group is involved in the review. Options emerging after the first stage will be subject to public consultation, and there will be no limit to the groups and agencies that may be consulted. All the groups on the Department’s consultation list for the equality scheme will be canvassed for their views, given that part of the focus will be on issues of equality and targeting social need. However, it will be an open and public consultation, and the Committee for Finance and Personnel will be fully involved.

Mr Francie Molloy: What consultation has taken place in relation to the general grant that is available to district councils? Does the Minister realise the extra burden that that will put on councils — particularly those in the west — as they will have to raise rates to keep level with existing services because of the reduction in the general grant?

Mr Mark Durkan: This question relates to the Budget rather than the rating policy review. If the Chairperson’s question is about whether there should be a review of how the resource grant is structured and how it is allocated, because the reduced funding envisaged for it in the draft Budget is having an impact on less well-off councils, then that is a matter for the Department of the Environment. That Department presides over the resource grant regime.

Trust Board Deficits

Mr Eddie McGrady: 2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail any discussions with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety concerning the review into trust board deficits; and to make a statement.
(AQO 375/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: I met with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in February, specifically to discuss this matter. It is a significant issue, which has been covered in other budgetary discussions since then. It has also been considered by the Executive, as reflected by our decisions in February, June and July.

Mr Eddie McGrady: The Minister referred to the joint committee set up in February to review the situation. Through that committee, will he and the Minister of Health address the injustice and lack of parity in services rendered by trusts? This comes about because some trusts stick to their budgets and do not create deficits: they achieve this by cutting back on services in their localities. Other trusts exceed their budgets, create deficits, and give a better service. When does the Minister anticipate that action will be taken on this, and when will the reports come from the joint committees?

Mr Mark Durkan: The review of trust deficits has been completed, and its work was the basis for the decisions taken in June and July and the subsequent announcements and discussions in the House previously. The question of the pattern of trust deficits, and the fact that not all trusts recorded deficits, is one that Members have previously addressed. It is a question that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety have been interested in.
It is not for me as Minister of Finance and Personnel to go into the details of specific trust decisions, or of how some trusts have taken steps to avoid deficits, whereas others have incurred deficits because of certain pressures and demands. Trusts with acute services seem to have had particular difficulty in avoiding deficits. That reflects the pattern of the pressures that those trusts are under. More detailed consideration is for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and her Department, and not for me.

Mr Derek Hussey: I listened to the Minister’s answer very carefully. Will he indicate what issues were raised during his meetings with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety? Did they discuss the transfer of patients on the closure of a hospital, or indeed from one board area to another, and the financial pressures that creates for a trust? That was the case when the South Tyrone Hospital was closed, and patients were transferred to the Tyrone County Hospital.

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member’s question should be answered by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Questions at this level of detailed service spend are not directly within my bailiwick as Minister of Finance and Personnel. Members will be aware, however, that allocations have been made in monitoring rounds in order to make good some of the pressures manifested as a result of previous decisions in relation to the South Tyrone Hospital.

Marginalised Communities (Resources)

Ms Sue Ramsey: 3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what action he proposes to take to increase the allocation of resources to marginalised communities.
(AQO 403/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: We are addressing the needs of marginalised communities in several ways. New targeting social need (TSN) is a policy theme that cuts across all areas of activity by trying to use more of our existing resources to benefit people in greatest objective social need, including those identified by the new Noble indicators.
All Budget proposals are evaluated for their New TSN implications. The Executive are considering the future priorities that should be addressed through the promoting social inclusion aspect of New TSN, and will be announcing new priorities shortly. The social inclusion Executive programme fund has been designed to focus resources on actions against poverty, as well as on community relations and cultural diversity. In addition, social integration, inclusion and reconciliation are key priorities of the new Peace II programme.
New TSN is one of the horizontal principles identified in the Northern Ireland community support framework. It is embedded in, and will be delivered through the implementation of, building sustainable prosperity and Peace II.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Does the Minister agree that given the level of poverty in communities, and the importance of education and health in increasing life chances and quality of life in marginalised communities, the current health and education budgets are inadequate and need to be addressed?

Mr Mark Durkan: The health and education budgets are both the subject of Executive priority consideration, as reflected in the draft Budget. That is reflected in the fact that those two Departments have received the most significant uplifts on their newly projected allocation for next year, as opposed to what was in last December’s indicative allocation for next year. How Departments best target their allocations to meet their New TSN and equality obligations is a matter for the Departments themselves.

Human Rights Culture

Mr Conor Murphy: 4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what steps he has taken to ensure the development of a human rights culture within his Department.
(AQO 402/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: The Department of Finance and Personnel promotes awareness of human rights issues to all its staff, through tailored training courses and monitoring of case law. Central Personnel Group, given its central role, has also initiated Northern Ireland Civil Service- wide specialist training for senior Civil Service staff. Business areas in the Department have carried out assessments of legislation and procedures, and audits of policies to ensure compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mr Conor Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he explain to the House how promoting the human rights ethos will affect decisions on, for instance, the relocation of Civil Service jobs to allow people access to jobs closer to home? Will promoting human rights have an impact on that sort of decision?

Mr Mark Durkan: Some of the issues mentioned by Mr C Murphy are more relevant to equality considerations and New TSN policies than to human rights as under the Human Rights Act 1998. As previously stated, equality, New TSN, the regional development strategy, efficiency and costs, for instance, are informing the work on the accommodation policy strategy review.

Land Register (Computerisation)

Mr George Savage: 6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what action he proposes to take to help alleviate the disruption caused to the legal profession as a result of the computerisation of the land register.
(AQO 409/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: The land register has significantly increased productivity in the past year as a result of computerisation. However, an estimated 25% increase in the workload in some areas has meant that backlogs and registration delays have not improved over that time. I have asked land registrars to make proposals for substantially reducing the backlog over the next 12 months and, as part of those proposals, to consider the possibility of delaying any further extension of compulsory first registration until the backlog is reduced. That would be of considerable benefit to the legal profession. Those proposals are to be submitted to me in the next few days.

Mr George Savage: The Minister will be aware that he has had representations from the Law Society of Northern Ireland on this and that it is not only solicitors who suffer from the disruption but mortgage lenders and other financiers too. There is a backlog with proof of title for home-buyers in County Down especially, where it appears to be worse than anywhere else. It would be appreciated if easing that backlog could be speeded up.

Mr Mark Durkan: I am aware of the representations from the Law Society of Northern Ireland, and the Committee for Finance and Personnel has also relayed details of them to me. Not all the problems are as straightforward as some of those lobbying would suggest. If all the information received by land registrars, including information from the legal profession and others working in the property field, was accurate, delays and time spent on the misplaced activity sometimes involved would be reduced.
However, the land registrars appreciate the needs of their customers and know that their customers are not only those in the legal profession. They have already made good some of their commitments in recent months to secure improvements in the short term. The focus now is on trying to ensure that underlying improvements last for the longer term.

Barnett Formula

Mr John Fee: 7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what steps he intends to take to secure further resources under the Barnett formula.
(AQO385/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: Officials are examining the effects of operating the Barnett formula under the resource accounting and budgeting system and discussing them with the Treasury. The case for assessing the needs of public expenditure is being examined in the context of the six needs and effectiveness evaluations being undertaken in Departments. As already stated, the 2002 spending review sets the context for negotiations on the Barnett formula with the Treasury.

Mr John Fee: I think that I have been headed off at the pass, but nonetheless I want to ask the Minister two questions.
In the future, will he perhaps consider publishing a "fool’s guide" to the Barnett formula, as it is a complicated and mysterious method of establishing our Budget? Can he give more detail on how the change to resource accounting and budgeting will affect the formula, and how the six needs and effectiveness reviews will be used to support all the Barnett negotiations?

Mr Mark Durkan: I think two questions became three; that is inflation for you. I wish the Barnett formula would work like that and give us more at the end than it started out offering.
To take the last point first, the work on the needs and effectiveness evaluations will provide the most basic and essential information for any negotiations we have with the Treasury. They are aimed at providing a clear and realistic assessment of our needs. We need to reflect that clearly in negotiations with the Treasury, and to seek a move to funding allocations which also reflect that need. In the context of the negotiations that we will face, we have to show that we are properly addressing the effectiveness issues as well. The needs and effectiveness evaluation exercises will throw up questions and issues for us as far as our own decisions and allocations are concerned, as well as issues that we will want to talk to the Treasury about.
Regarding the impact of resource accounting and budgeting, a significant issue — probably the most significant issue in respect of Barnett — is the question of capital charges and depreciation costs. Where those have been taken account of previously, as part of annually managed expenditure, they did not impact on the funds that were within our discretion under the departmental expenditure limit. With resource accounting and budgeting, they now will.
We have a very high capital base here compared to England. For example, many roads in England belong to local authorities and do not count in the departmental expenditure limits. Here, they will. Water and sewerage are not owned by central government in England and do not count under the departmental expenditure limits in resource accounting and budgeting. Here, they will. Even on the impact of resource accounting and budgeting alone, we have a significant case to argue for modification to the Barnett formula.
Regarding the publication of a "fool’s guide" to the Barnett formula, we will try to produce further information and advice on its operation, not just for Members but for wider public interests. People see different reports in various magazines and periodicals that slice the issue and represent it differently.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Does the Minister agree, or will he at least consider the possibility, that if the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety were divided in two — one Department for health, and another for social services and public safety — we could perhaps attract more funding through the Barnett formula?

Mr Mark Durkan: There is no relationship between the number and functional responsibilities of Departments and the Barnett formula. I refer again to the point about water and sewerage, which do not count towards public expenditure in Britain. What we receive from the Barnett formula does not include an allocation for water and sewerage, so we have to make provision for that out of our own resources. Commitments such as that further squeeze the Barnett formula, and for those reasons we have to look to what it is we are going to do for ourselves through rates and revenue-raising. There is more work for us in analysing those issues than there is in restructuring Departments or reallocating responsibilities, as that will make no impact on what the Treasury allocates to us.

Social and Economic Marginalisation

Dr Dara O'Hagan: 8. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what steps he has taken to ensure that departmental procurement enhances the objectives of tackling social and economic marginalisation.
(AQO 405/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: Although current procurement policy is driven by value for money and delivery against price, the integration of social and economic considerations in procurement offers the potential to ensure that that important activity is managed in a way that promotes and is consistent with our wider policy objectives.
I commissioned a review team to look at procurement, and it has made several recommendations. I have invited comments on the recommendations from external stakeholders by 30 November. After that date, the Executive will make a final decision.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Will the Minister give a personal commitment that social and economic issues will be kept at the centre of any departmental procurement procedures and that equality requirements will be adhered to? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Mark Durkan: Following on from the implementation review, one of our public procurement aims is to reduce the transaction costs so that we can re-deploy savings into vital areas of expenditure, not least to support broader social and economic policy. Although the policy of value for money will run through all areas of procurement, like letters through a stick of rock, it is also possible to achieve other multipliers, not only in the Executive’s social and economic policy, but in the environmental area.
I am committed to ensuring that public procurement achieves best value for money and also contributes to social and economic policy objectives. The workings of our procurement policy will support the course of action that we take in relation to our valid economic regional objective of improving our small- to medium- sized enterprises (SMEs). We are concerned about targeting social need, tackling long-term unemployment and trying to improve working opportunities for people with disabilities. Such initiatives, as well as good environmental standards, are supported by our policy of procurement activity.

Senior Civil Service Review

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 9. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what progress has been made regarding the Senior Civil Service review.
(AQO 382/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: The first meeting of the review team took place on Monday 5 March. Since then, the team has considered and analysed a wide range of issues and undertaken a programme of consultation with key stakeholders and other interested parties. It is anticipated that the team will submit its report to me by mid-December, before the Executive make a final decision.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Will the Minister expand on his answer and give some detail on how wide-ranging the review will be? What level of consultation will take place?

Mr Mark Durkan: The terms of reference for the review were deliberately broad to maximise the opportunity provided by such a review. Its four aims are: to ensure that current practices and procedures for appointment to and promotion within the Civil Service facilitate the business objectives of Departments and Ministers; speedily to enhance representation in the Senior Civil Service; to address and identify obstacles to fair participation by all sectors of the community; and to match best practice in other major public-and private-sector bodies. To ensure that those aims are addressed, the review team has consulted with 39 organisations or groups that represent the voluntary and public sectors, as well as the business community. That work is almost complete. The organisations and groups consulted included Executive Committee members, the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the Equality Commission, trade unions and other groups identified in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. There may be further consultation on specific measures, depending on proposals that emerge from the review.

Accommodation Review

Mr Tommy Gallagher: 10. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel when the accommodation review will be completed.
(AQO 383/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: I anticipate a completion date of April 2002 for the Government accommodation review. The timetable incorporates proposals for the submission of an interim report by the consultants at the end of November.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: After April 2002, who will decide which functions will be decentralised or relocated?

Mr Mark Durkan: The consultants who are undertaking the review can only make recommendations. Once the review report is produced, the Executive will have to reach consensus on any accommodation implementation plan, taking into account the overall financial implications. That will involve value for money considerations and a range of other relevant policies, including equality, New TSN and the 2025 regional development strategy. It will fall to the Executive to bring forward proposals for the Assembly’s approval. For the information of some Members, I should clarify that it is not a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel to determine by directive what branch or division will move where. All Members should be aware that Departments have their own rights and responsibilities in those areas.

Mr Speaker: Questions 11 and 12 have been withdrawn and will receive written answers from the Minister.
Adjourned at 4.01 pm.